Comments on: Meeting Section 508 Standards http://digitalclaxon.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/meeting-section-508-standards/ Tech, gadgets, games and the net Fri, 06 Nov 2009 00:24:30 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: John http://digitalclaxon.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/meeting-section-508-standards/#comment-147 John Sun, 04 Jan 2009 23:06:34 +0000 http://digitalclaxon.wordpress.com/?p=257#comment-147 I've gone through the sites and removed items with outdated information, but we have a lot of things from pre-508 days that I need to fix. I don't make the rules, I just follow 'em! And section 508 says that all electronic documents must be compliant for equal access. That means anything stored electronically must be compliant. I’ve gone through the sites and removed items with outdated information, but we have a lot of things from pre-508 days that I need to fix. I don’t make the rules, I just follow ‘em!

And section 508 says that all electronic documents must be compliant for equal access. That means anything stored electronically must be compliant.

]]> By: Peter Abrahams http://digitalclaxon.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/meeting-section-508-standards/#comment-146 Peter Abrahams Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:40:19 +0000 http://digitalclaxon.wordpress.com/?p=257#comment-146 I am not at all convinced that section 508 says that archive material has to be compliant. If it does I am not sure it would recommend removing the information just because it does not comply. I think the information should be left up and converted as and when a request is made for the information in the right format. Removing documents if they include useful information seems of no benefit to people with disabilities. What happens if the document has some information that could be of use to a specific disabled person? If it has been removed then they will never know, if it is there they may not be able to access it directly but at least they can access it indirectly either through a third party reading it to them or by requesting, and receiving, an accessible version. I would suggest that only documents that are no use to anyone, not even historians, are removed. I am not at all convinced that section 508 says that archive material has to be compliant. If it does I am not sure it would recommend removing the information just because it does not comply. I think the information should be left up and converted as and when a request is made for the information in the right format.
Removing documents if they include useful information seems of no benefit to people with disabilities. What happens if the document has some information that could be of use to a specific disabled person? If it has been removed then they will never know, if it is there they may not be able to access it directly but at least they can access it indirectly either through a third party reading it to them or by requesting, and receiving, an accessible version.
I would suggest that only documents that are no use to anyone, not even historians, are removed.

]]> By: John http://digitalclaxon.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/meeting-section-508-standards/#comment-145 John Sun, 04 Jan 2009 04:45:25 +0000 http://digitalclaxon.wordpress.com/?p=257#comment-145 Hey Peter, It's not all branches, but the specific office I work with. As a contractor, I'm not sure what the entire department is forced to do as I'm not privileged to that information. Additionally, I'm not sure this is announcement you would find widely distributed as everything since the 1998 disabilities act was passed should meet with compliance standards, but very few items actually meet compliance. And don't get me started on the woefully outdated requirements. I am aware that new standards are constantly being created to deal with technology that didn't exist in 1998, but not having clear guidelines now may force us to return to documents we assumed were compliant when posted. A good place to see what I have to follow is at www.hhs.gov/web. This site is really helpful, but its guidelines can be interpreted many ways. Since everyone reads the guidelines differently, we frequently have inter-departmental disputes as to what is compliant. I frequently come across new challenges in the 508 arena that I am not sure how to address (Asian language PDFs are a huge problem. I don't have the resources to have someone go through these documents and add tags and a structure in the native language. Even if I found a person that speaks one of these languages, they probably wouldn't know how to remediate a PDF). I'm going to see if I can track down any information and post it here for you. I learned this information from an internal e-mail. I'm somewhat hesitant to share it, so I'll see if I can find the official document. Hey Peter,

It’s not all branches, but the specific office I work with. As a contractor, I’m not sure what the entire department is forced to do as I’m not privileged to that information. Additionally, I’m not sure this is announcement you would find widely distributed as everything since the 1998 disabilities act was passed should meet with compliance standards, but very few items actually meet compliance.

And don’t get me started on the woefully outdated requirements. I am aware that new standards are constantly being created to deal with technology that didn’t exist in 1998, but not having clear guidelines now may force us to return to documents we assumed were compliant when posted.

A good place to see what I have to follow is at http://www.hhs.gov/web. This site is really helpful, but its guidelines can be interpreted many ways. Since everyone reads the guidelines differently, we frequently have inter-departmental disputes as to what is compliant. I frequently come across new challenges in the 508 arena that I am not sure how to address (Asian language PDFs are a huge problem. I don’t have the resources to have someone go through these documents and add tags and a structure in the native language. Even if I found a person that speaks one of these languages, they probably wouldn’t know how to remediate a PDF).

I’m going to see if I can track down any information and post it here for you. I learned this information from an internal e-mail. I’m somewhat hesitant to share it, so I’ll see if I can find the official document.

]]> By: Peter Abrahams http://digitalclaxon.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/meeting-section-508-standards/#comment-144 Peter Abrahams Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:41:30 +0000 http://digitalclaxon.wordpress.com/?p=257#comment-144 This is an interesting and worrying article. However, I have tried to do some research and I cannot find out where the April 1 deadline comes from or the need to apply accessibility criteria to archival information. Can someone give me a link to the relevant part of the legislation? This is an interesting and worrying article. However, I have tried to do some research and I cannot find out where the April 1 deadline comes from or the need to apply accessibility criteria to archival information.
Can someone give me a link to the relevant part of the legislation?

]]> By: Xdm http://digitalclaxon.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/meeting-section-508-standards/#comment-143 Xdm Wed, 24 Dec 2008 17:29:25 +0000 http://digitalclaxon.wordpress.com/?p=257#comment-143 Like I said, I think it will be easier and cheaper to go find the people who can't see and read them the documents personally. Like I said, I think it will be easier and cheaper to go find the people who can’t see and read them the documents personally.

]]> By: Adam http://digitalclaxon.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/meeting-section-508-standards/#comment-142 Adam Tue, 23 Dec 2008 05:06:14 +0000 http://digitalclaxon.wordpress.com/?p=257#comment-142 As long as you get the em-dashes right, everything will be ok. As long as you get the em-dashes right, everything will be ok.

]]> By: John http://digitalclaxon.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/meeting-section-508-standards/#comment-141 John Mon, 22 Dec 2008 16:41:45 +0000 http://digitalclaxon.wordpress.com/?p=257#comment-141 I think progress is good, but we shouldn't remove things because we can't make them compliant. We are catering to the few instead of the many, and in this case it helps no one. I think someone thinks that there is a simple fix for this problem, when it is really complicated. I think progress is good, but we shouldn’t remove things because we can’t make them compliant. We are catering to the few instead of the many, and in this case it helps no one.

I think someone thinks that there is a simple fix for this problem, when it is really complicated.

]]> By: Mike Busch http://digitalclaxon.wordpress.com/2008/12/20/meeting-section-508-standards/#comment-140 Mike Busch Mon, 22 Dec 2008 05:17:57 +0000 http://digitalclaxon.wordpress.com/?p=257#comment-140 Sounds like the government hard at work, and the _exact_ reason I have a good amount of disdain for special interests. However, I do see this as progress towards an ultimate goal of accessiblity, but there's a long way to go. I'm sure all those documents aren't passing HTML/CSS validation on the Strict DOCTYPE. And I'm sure there's a host of other problems like javascript driven links, non-use of progressive enhancement with CSS, etc. In the end though, the major thing is that you are making the documents "closer" to ideal, which is a major step up from where they were. There is no need to tear down old content; unless it is outdated or irrelevant. Sounds like the government hard at work, and the _exact_ reason I have a good amount of disdain for special interests. However, I do see this as progress towards an ultimate goal of accessiblity, but there’s a long way to go. I’m sure all those documents aren’t passing HTML/CSS validation on the Strict DOCTYPE. And I’m sure there’s a host of other problems like javascript driven links, non-use of progressive enhancement with CSS, etc. In the end though, the major thing is that you are making the documents “closer” to ideal, which is a major step up from where they were. There is no need to tear down old content; unless it is outdated or irrelevant.

]]>