[blindlaw] Format Question

Sun Dec 21 22:31:42 UTC 2008

Not exactly, Dave.  Section 508 has elements of procurement law, but at its
root is the accessibility of electronic and information technology to
federal employees with disabilities.  It covers websites to telephones, copy
machines to fax machines.  An element of Section 508 is certifications from
vendors that the equipment is accessible, but the regs on 508 are very tech
specific as to how the information and electronic technology should be
accessible.  Regs for Section 508 are found on the U.S. Access Board's
website.

Section 508, by and large, does not apply to the public; only federal
employees.  Section 504 applies to both federal employees (working in
federal buildings) and recipients of federal financial assistance.

Craig

Craig Borne
Baltimore, Maryland
"A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial
appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in
defense of custom."  --Thomas Paine, Common Sense

-----Original Message-----
From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of David Andrews
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2008 12:30 PM
To: NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] Format Question

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.c
om
>
>
>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

_______________________________________________
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/cjborne%40comcast.
net