[gui-talk] Response to "The Hands That Feed"

[Mike Freeman]

In my opinion, Sec. 508 and WCAG 2.0 aren't enough although they go along
way toward making sites accessible.

Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:gui-talk-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2012 11:59 AM
To: gui-talk at nfbnet.org
Subject: Re: [gui-talk] Response to "The Hands That Feed"

Someone wrote on this thread that it would be nice to have standards for
accessibility.  I just wanted to point out Section 508 and WCAG 2.0.
Accessibility standards are already out.  However, assessing
corporations accessibility maturity regularly and publishing such
information would be a much more proactive way to highlight differences
among major vendors.  For example, Apple does have an accessibility
group who is involved in IOS, and some applications development and
update.  What level of interaction does the accessibility group have
with Apple applications?  Same questions for MS and Google would show us
all some interesting results I suspect.  How does Apple, Microsoft, or
Google prioritize accessibility problem reports?  What track record does
each vendor have for providing remediation of reported problems?  All of
this kind of stuff is a metric for determining an accessibility maturity
score to rank vendors on.  Such rankings give impact to complaints from
organizations, and promote competition.  Simply targeting a complaint
can be misinterpreted as this episode seems to illustrate.  I see no
movement in the advocacy arena to start honestly measuring vendors for
accessibility maturity.  Seems like basic management stuff to me.
 
   
 
 
 
 
Allen Hoffman
_______________________________________________
gui-talk mailing list
gui-talk at nfbnet.org
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/gui-talk_nfbnet.org
To unsubscribe, change your list options or get your account info for
gui-talk:
http://nfbnet.org/mailman/options/gui-talk_nfbnet.org/k7uij%40panix.com