Section 508 standards should be clearly communicated and understood throughout government. Making government data, processes, decisions and activities accessible to all Americans empowers citizens to participate and contribute to decision making.
29 votes
I disagreeIf EVERY agency followed the SAME set of 508 guidelines, it would help to streamline and consolidate 508 implementation. Currently, agencies treat and evaluate 508 differently.
Ask any contractor who works with multiple agencies and they will tell you the same thing....the agencies all intepret 508 it differently.
29 votes
I disagreeIt's hard to design, write, code, etc. for people you don't know. One of the value of usability testing with people with a variety of disabilities is that it puts a human face on the goals of Section 508. I do NOT mean using people with disabilities as "accessibility QA testers." This is about observing - and understanding - why each requirement in Section 508 (or WCAG 2.0) exists: what human communication need it meets. ...more »
It's hard to design, write, code, etc. for people you don't know. One of the value of usability testing with people with a variety of disabilities is that it puts a human face on the goals of Section 508.
I do NOT mean using people with disabilities as "accessibility QA testers." This is about observing - and understanding - why each requirement in Section 508 (or WCAG 2.0) exists: what human communication need it meets.
« less full details »
13 votes
I disagreeDo people in HR or in areas that might handle Section 508 get trained in how to handle Section 508
complaints? It seems that the whole issue of how to make a Section 508 complaint for those of us that might want to is very confusing because
all the agencies are supposed to come up with their own plans for how to handle them.
Comment from Accessibility Committee virtual Listening Session, Sept 8, 2011
10 votes
I disagreeRight now 508 decisions are made with almost no transparency. This leads to disparities among agencies, and insufficient information about accessibility for other decisionmakers -- basically everyone who buys or uses ICT. (Remember, 508 is supposed to benefit the entire ICT market.) For example, why are VPATs treated as private communications between an agency and a vendor? All information about ICT accessibility should ...more »
Right now 508 decisions are made with almost no transparency. This leads to disparities among agencies, and insufficient information about accessibility for other decisionmakers -- basically everyone who buys or uses ICT. (Remember, 508 is supposed to benefit the entire ICT market.) For example, why are VPATs treated as private communications between an agency and a vendor?
All information about ICT accessibility should be public, and published in a manner most likely to see it shared usefully across the entire user base. Mainstream and AT vendors, people with disabilities, ICT implementation managers, advocacy organizations, researchers -- all have a lot of expertise to offer. Sharing our testing results and methodologies, AT compatibility notes, tips and tricks, etc. will immediately improve accessibility, and build long-term resources.
Ironically, it's been non-federal folks, especially higher ed, who've done a great job already in this direction. But the information is still too tightly held.
« less full details »
7 votes
I disagreeNot all products will be fully compliant. Some sole source products are almost completely non-compliant. Yet agencies need ICT to do their jobs. How about letting agencies purchase products that are not fully compliant under the following conditions: 1. The vendor commits to a remediation plan with an enforceable timetable. 2. The vendor provides all testing results, workarounds, tips & tricks,etc. that can aid in accommodation ...more »
Not all products will be fully compliant. Some sole source products are almost completely non-compliant. Yet agencies need ICT to do their jobs. How about letting agencies purchase products that are not fully compliant under the following conditions:
1. The vendor commits to a remediation plan with an enforceable timetable.
2. The vendor provides all testing results, workarounds, tips & tricks,etc. that can aid in accommodation in the meantime.
3. The provisional status is publicized so that other agencies and other public and private sector ICT customers (and ICT competitors) know what's up.
« less full details »
7 votes
I disagreeLots of federal sites feature videos without captions or description. Why not develop a tool that visits all federal sites, identifies these offending videos, and at least notifies the agency's 508 coordinator about the problem? Other oversight may be necessary. Of course, this should be accompanied by better availability of captioning and description tools, and by agencies purchasing only media creation tools that default ...more »
Lots of federal sites feature videos without captions or description. Why not develop a tool that visits all federal sites, identifies these offending videos, and at least notifies the agency's 508 coordinator about the problem? Other oversight may be necessary.
Of course, this should be accompanied by better availability of captioning and description tools, and by agencies purchasing only media creation tools that default to (and nag about) accessibility techniques.
« less full details »
5 votes
I disagreeCollect and post data for external web applications on an agency and/or OMG/GSA web site and post a similar data set on an agency’s intranet. Present it as a quarterly or yearly report by Providing a table which lists: 1) the agencies web applications (link to splash screen), 2) has/when accessibility testing occurred, 3) a compliance determination, 4) known accessibility defects (link), 5) work around or accommodation ...more »
Collect and post data for external web applications on an agency and/or OMG/GSA web site and post a similar data set on an agency’s intranet. Present it as a quarterly or yearly report by Providing a table which lists: 1) the agencies web applications (link to splash screen), 2) has/when accessibility testing occurred, 3) a compliance determination, 4) known accessibility defects (link), 5) work around or accommodation available (link), and 6) a method for providing accessibility feedback for each application.
This is a good way to evaluate an agencies performance, it addresses the Transparency objectives of the plan, and it also encourages agencies to mature their accessibility programs with a feedback tool to help the process.
« less full details »
Social Web