Hi, David, I hoped to convey that industry had substantial influence in weakening 508 regulations during the reg writing process. I certainly agree with your point on that. You are also correct that a move is afoot to revisit 508 regs. I would hope this does not happen for another year or two. I think the time is very wrong for that. For example, how can the Access Board properly write regs when no one has seen what UI-Automation will give us, and only begun to understand what Cocoa and AT-SPI can and cannot do? Frankly, I would expect revisiting the regs today would only serve to entrench existing practices for another 5 or 6 years. David Poehlman writes: > Janina, > > Well said but I don't know what local parentus is <grin> They had > plenty of help. They had deep discussions with the wai and others > around the country and infact the world. Much of what they adopted > came at the urging of industry and somewhat of a lack among the > consumer community although I know that afb commented in volumes. I > do know that the draft we saw before publication was substantially > changed between that final draft and its publication through locked > room proceedings. > > I've said enough on this though considering it's off topic for the > list. One more item though. 508 will be revisitted and hopefully, > this time, it will be improved re the standards, but with the way > that wcag 2.0 is going, I have my doubts if it is strung against it. > > -- > Jonnie Apple Seed > With His: > Hands-On Technolog(eye)s > > > On Jun 10, 2005, at 9:11 AM, Janina Sajka wrote: > > Well, it is probably useful to recognize who did it, and what their > credentials are for doing it. The agency entrusted with the task had no > previous experience in technology regulations. In particular, I would > warrant most of its Board not particularly qualified in technology, > though perhaps well qualified in more traditional accessibility issues. > Suffice it to say they had to change their name from "Architectural and > Transportation Barriers Compliance Board." Just a few years previous to > this assignment, they described their charge as "all the things in a > building that wouldn't fall out if you could turn the building upside > down and shake it." > > I'm not saying it was unreasonable to entrust the task to this agency, > just that they were rather new to the kind of regulating being asked of > them. > > The thesis suggested by David Poehlman is probably as good as any. Even > though it smacks of "in loco parentis," it's plausible. So, too, is the > notion expressed at the URL I posted yesterday that some computational > tasks should be done client side, rather than server side, as if servers > were going to be overloaded with extraneous computational loads. > > Suffice it to say that 508 represents the first time fairly serious > requirements on accessibility were imposed by the world's number one > technology customer. If you look at press stories about 508 around the > year 2000, there was quite a bit of fear mongering. It should not be > surprising that significant pressure would be exerted against various > provisions or proposed provisions. > > Despite any failings, and I believe 508 has failings, I still regard it > as a solid move forward. Discrepencies such as the one under discussion > cannot continue unaddressed, because technology tends to abhor > discrepencies among political jurisdictions. Industry isn't served if > entity 1 requires A, but entity 2 requires "not A." Such things need to > be resolved and eventually this one will be. > > I would close by observing my own disappointment about 508 is not so > much with the regs, but with our communities failure to pose any > significant challenge to 508 enforcement or practice. I'm unaware of any > significant 508 complaint, and that is just not credible to me. > Certainly there are problems, and there are mechanisms for adjudicating > complaints. I am one who believes that the 508 regulations fall far > short of the 508 law itself and are thus excellent fodder for > complaints. But, we don't have any--at least not any significant ones. > > > > Karen Lewellen writes: > > > > > Go ahead, I am really interested in your opinion on this given you > >are > > actively involved with some of the process. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Speakup mailing list > Speakup at braille.uwo.ca > http://speech.braille.uwo.ca/mailman/listinfo/speakup -- Chair, Accessibility Workgroup Free Standards Group (FSG) janina at freestandards.org http://a11y.org Janina Sajka Phone: +1.202.494.7040 Partner, Capital Accessibility LLC http://www.CapitalAccessibility.Com Bringing the Owasys 22C screenless cell phone to the U.S. and Canada. Go to http://www.ScreenlessPhone.Com to learn more.
