Well, seems we got the thread going at least. Section 508 is a lame attempt to meet accessibility needs. If you look at what's going on around the world - England, Italy, European Union, Australia and other countries - you'll see it's lame.
Section 508 picked and chose which elements they thought was correct without even attempting to understand the problems faced by assistive technologies. Section 508 has elements from Priority 2 and Priority 3 while skipping some elements from Priority 1. Now, that's interesting - they skip required elements in lieu of lower priority elements. I've reviewed a few people's web sites and found they were claiming conformance to Section 508. So, that's the reason for my question. t94xr states, "Its a first and simple step." How can Section 508 be a first and simple step? While WCAG2 is still in the works, I participate in the working group, it still has some very strong concepts that will help you with accessibility. You'll notice that some of the Priority 2 and Priority 3 elements have been made more important. That's because in 1998 and 1999 there were many things we didn't understand about assistive technology and many things assistive technology couldn't handle. Since WCAG1 we now have User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (UAAG) and Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) and even accessibility guidelines for developing XML documents. A lot of advancements have been made. I would highly suggest you skip bragging about Section 508 or even attempting to conform with it. Rather develop your conformance to higher standards. Even on the Oklahoma Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Task Force, which I'm a member, we took Section 508 as our base rules and advanced beyond it. Many States have done the same including Missouri and Illinois. If you're clients are going to do anything internationally, don't even think about returning with Section 508 conformance. All it takes is one large company from the U.S. to be sued in a foreign country and the playing field will be altered so quickly it will make your head spin. I hope this wasn't too long winded. I have a fond appreciation for accessibility and for the standards. I'm glad this organization does as well. Best Regards, Lee Roberts -----Original Message----- From: Patrick Lauke [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 9:56 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [WSG] 508?? Tim knows that. What Tim was asking was: what on earth is the thread starter asking when he says "Would someone please explain why the WSG thinks Section 508 is what should be used?" I'd be interested in what on earth he's talking about as well, coincidentally... Patrick -----Original Message----- From: t94xr.net.nz webmaster [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 29/06/2004 15:23 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Subject: Re: [WSG] 508?? > Sure, if you explain what on earth you're talking about. > > -- tim 508 is this, http://www.contentquality.com/mynewtester/cynthia.exe?rptmode=-1&runcr=1&url 1=http://www.t94xr.net.nz/ Conformance to web accessability standards produced by the W3C. Basically those ponts there tell you wats required for 508 compliance. Its a first and simple step. t94xr http://www.t94xr.net.nz/ ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ***************************************************** Nnvy jq?z ***************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help *****************************************************
