[blindlaw] Format Question

Sun Dec 21 17:29:45 UTC 2008

Actually section 508 is a procurement law.  It has to do with stuff 
purchased with federal funds.

Dave

At 02:43 PM 12/8/2008, you wrote:
>Section 508 is strictly "Electronic and Information Technology" and
>would not apply in this situation.
>
>More likely, Section 504, which applies to program access, would be
>applicable here.  Of course, access to the SSA website, electronic
>documentation, and other technological apparatus is important, but if
>the SSA doesn't send electronic notices to clients, then they don't
>necessarily have to do it for blind clients under Section 508.  Section
>504 is a totally different matter, one that Jim discussed perfectly.
>
>Best,
>Craig
>
>Craig Borne, Esq.
>NHTSA/DOT
>(202) 493-0627
>craig.borne at dot.gov
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org]
>On Behalf Of James Pepper
>Sent: Monday, December 08, 2008 1:07 PM
>To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
>Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Format Question
>
>Charles and Jim:
>SSA is under Section 508, they have to comply. They are required to be
>accessible to the blind and there is no excuse and it has nothing to do
>with
>their charter, they are required to be accessible.
>
>Charles I contacted the folks at ACB and told them what I can do with
>the
>forms and they refused to even listen to me.  I can make the Social
>Security
>Forms accessible and there would be no difference between the forms for
>the
>blind and the forms for everyone else.  But I think the ACB is more
>concerned with older technologies and not any interaction.  This
>confuses
>the issue.
>
>What we need is accessibility, real substantial accessibility where you
>can
>walk into a court room and show that a blind person can access the
>content
>with their computer or device and show that it can be done, right there
>in
>front of a judge.  That demonstration blows away any argument made by
>the IT
>people of a government agency because quite frankly they never test
>their
>pages.  They simply do not test their work using the products used by
>the
>blind.
>
>It is astounding how simple this work can be demonstrated. And when you
>go
>through all of their code on webpages and explain each point and why it
>is
>not accessible, the courts listen to this, and it either is accessible
>or it
>isn't there is no in between.
>
>IT people only test for SEction 508 compliance using testing programs
>like
>Bobby or the Section 508 test in Adobe Acrobat.  Both of these tests
>only
>test for specific items and they both say in their literature that they
>are
>not conclusing testing, that you have to manually test your pages for
>compliance.  But the IT people do not know this, they just test  with
>the
>programs and claim compliance and show this to their bosses and they
>take
>them at their word. And since the IT professionals are self regulating,
>this
>means that nothing is done when they do it wrong.
>
>This is what is happening in the Texas Case with the NFB versus the
>Texas
>Workforce Commission which was over the idea that Oracle, while claiming
>its
>products are section 508 compliant, it was found that they actually were
>not
>accessible to the blind workers who used their software.  The
>demonstrated
>the lack of accessibility in the court room.  So the State of Texas is
>now
>in a mad rush to become accessible to the blind, real tangible
>accessibility.
>
>The recent case against Target opens this up even greater.  And it shows
>that there is no tolerance for this type of nonsense anymore.  The
>question
>is what formats are we going to use.  Why not all of them?   Why does
>ACM
>insist on converting everything to text when we can have interactive
>forms
>and documents.
>
>The problem here is IT officials who think that what they are doing is
>accessible to the blind because they say it is accessible.  I run into
>this
>all the time, the pride of an IT official and how dare anyone challenge
>their work, they have been in the IT industry for at last 20 years.  But
>that doesn't mean they know how to do it.
>
>You see this in the training tutorials for software.  When you come upon
>an
>accessibility issue the training tells you how to do it as simply and as
>fast as possible because accessibility is considered a nuisance and you
>must
>do the bare minimum and that is all.  Adobe teaches in their online
>seminars
>how to get around the Internet Explorer safety feature that prevents
>videos
>from turning on automatically.  This feature prevents Flash Videos from
>showing automatically so people who are photo sensitive can get a blast
>of
>flashing screen and thus have seizures and migraines.  There is no
>regard
>for the consequences, they really do not care to find out why the rule
>was
>in place.  They just think it is cool to have the video come on
>automatically.
>
>So I recommend that failure standards be imposed upon all IT officials.
>The
>first thing that needs to be done is to have every webpage be audited
>for
>W3C compliance.  There are some legitimate reasons for non compliance in
>minor cases (blogs for instance) but that is not the norm. All websites
>should be W3C compliant.  W3C compliance (World Wide Web Consortium)
>compliance is a test to determine if your website's code
>is written properly; it is a test to determine if you know how to write
>code.  So this is an easy failure standard that management can use to
>determine if their IT people know what they are doing.
>
>Web pages can be audited to determine who is working on them and if they
>actually know how to write code.  If they don't; fire them and replace
>them
>with someone who can write code properly.  And this will speed up
>webpages,
>make them work properly and save organizations and government agencies
>and
>states a fortune in down time because their IT people will no longer be
>fixing bad code with other bad code.
>
>IT people are the problem here, they are the face of the agency, they
>control how the content is delivered and if they refuse to do their
>jobs, when the agencies are told it cannot be done because they cannot
>do
>it, it is time to fire them and hire people who will do the work.   The
>problem here is who is actually running the agency?  IT runs everything,
>the
>Social Security Adminstrator works for their IT people, not the other
>way
>around.
>
>Also SSA has forms in about 16 languages. SSA recognizes that for equal
>protection you must present the forms in multiple languages, so why not
>braille.
>
>I can make the forms accessible in all the languages supported by JAWS
>and
>Window Eyes, I have not tested for HAL. I noted that government agencies
>who
>think their forms are accessible, never do it for Spanish.  They are
>English
>only accessible.  So they are discriminating against people of Spanish
>descent. You are all lawyers, isn't that against the Civil Rights Act?
>
>There is no excuse for SSA for not having accessible forms.  I can do
>it.  Does anyone here have any connections to the case because I can fix
>this situation.  Or how do I get a grant to demonstrate this so we can
>make
>SSA accessible to the blind, in all the languages supported by JAWS and
>Window Eyes?  How would I go about showing the judge that ACB does not
>have
>all the answers, that it can be done in other formats?  And since most
>of
>SSA's forms are already in PDF format, that can in many cases save a lot
>of
>time and effort including the fact that they are set up to handle PDF
>format.  But most of the forms would have to be reworked.  I would think
>SSA
>could understant accessibility in an accessible PDF form more easily and
>integrate the idea quicker than any other format.  they are already
>familiar
>with the technology and what is happening here is trying to teach IT
>people
>that things are possible because after all, they run the agency.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>James G. Pepper
>_______________________________________________
>blindlaw mailing list
>blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
>blindlaw:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/craig.borne%40
>dot.gov
>
>_______________________________________________
>blindlaw mailing list
>blindlaw at nfbnet.org
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw_nfbnet.org
>To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info 
>for blindlaw:
>http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/options/blindlaw_nfbnet.org/dandrews%40visi.com
>
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
>Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.9.15/1837 - Release Date: 
>12/8/2008 9:38 AM