OT: Section 508 Compliancy

Is there any official certification for section 508 compliancy? I've been looking around and have found 3rd party consultants that will make your site compliant. The only "badge" I've seen on Web sites is the "W3C WGAC" label... which is and isn't the same thing. I've also seen the "Bobby" badge (http://bobby.watchfire.com/bobby/html/en/index.jsp). Any ideas?   Thanks :)   Eric

Carlisle, Eric wrote: ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- Rule of the thumb: if it looks decent in Lynx and is valid HTML, it is compliant. Jochem

Sorry Jochem, but that just means it works in Lynx not that it meets all the 508 criteria. -Kevin ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----

Kevin Graeme wrote: > Sorry Jochem, but that just means it works in Lynx not that it meets > all the 508 criteria. Which parts of 1194.22 wouldn't it comply with then? Jochem

Not necessarily the specific portions.  It might even comply legally, but that doesn't meant that it would be easily readable in a screen reader such as JAWS or Simply Web.   To give an example, use three programs.   Lynx - http://lynx.browser.org  Text Only Web Site. Any regular internet browser - IE, Netscape Simply Web 2000 http://www.econointl.com/sw/ A free text and speech web browser. Then, just for giggles, look at www.whitehouse.gov in each.  This is supposed to be a 508 compliant site but doesn't validate in Bobby. Reads really well in Lynx, but notice what happens in the screen reader. This site http://www.ehdp.com/vitalnet/ did validate in Bobby.  But again, look it in the screen reader.  This is a good example of sites that follow the letter of the law, but not the spirit. A great book is published by Glasshaus, Accessible Web Sites, Jim Thatcher.  Delves into a lot of trying to make a site truly compliant, not just verifiable by BOBBY. Another option (which is what I am starting to work towards) is using separating my content totally from presentation using XHTML and CSS2. By doing this, 508 becomes incredibly easy and truly useful. Glasshaus - Cascading Style Sheets: Separating Content from Presentation - Briggs Some sites if you are interested. http://www.glish.com http://www.webstandards.org http://www.alistapart.com Kevin Graeme wrote: > Sorry Jochem, but that just means it works in Lynx not that it meets > all the 508 criteria. Which parts of 1194.22 wouldn't it comply with then? Jochem

On Thursday, Nov 7, 2002, at 06:11 US/Pacific, Jochem van Dieten wrote: > Carlisle, Eric wrote: >> Is there any official certification for section 508 compliancy? > Rule of the thumb: > if it looks decent in Lynx and is valid HTML, it is compliant. If only it were that simple! :) Check out the Accessibility Guidelines I published, based on my team's internal document - that's not comprehensive but it should give you a good idea of the sort of things that are involved:   http://www.corfield.org/coldfusion/accessibility.html "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood

All of these are great! Thanks a lot :-) On Thursday, Nov 7, 2002, at 06:11 US/Pacific, Jochem van Dieten wrote: > Carlisle, Eric wrote: >> Is there any official certification for section 508 compliancy? > Rule of the thumb: > if it looks decent in Lynx and is valid HTML, it is compliant. If only it were that simple! :) Check out the Accessibility Guidelines I published, based on my team's internal document - that's not comprehensive but it should give you a good idea of the sort of things that are involved:   http://www.corfield.org/coldfusion/accessibility.html "If you're not annoying somebody, you're not really alive." -- Margaret Atwood

Your examples suggest that the problem isn't with Lynx but with screen readers. Lynx cleanly separates form and content (the goal of css standards). Readers don't seem able to perform such separation. So either developers have to go to extraordinary lengths to accommodate proprietary screen reader idiosyncrasies or we need a standards based screen reader, and of course standards based sites. On balance, Jochem seems right. Lynx delivers content.  So, Jaws over Lynx? Speech ready Lynx? drew Not necessarily the specific portions.  It might even comply legally, but that doesn't meant that it would be easily readable in a screen reader such as JAWS or Simply Web.   To give an example, use three programs.   Lynx - http://lynx.browser.org  Text Only Web Site. Any regular internet browser - IE, Netscape Simply Web 2000 http://www.econointl.com/sw/ A free text and speech web browser. Then, just for giggles, look at www.whitehouse.gov in each.  This is supposed to be a 508 compliant site but doesn't validate in Bobby. Reads really well in Lynx, but notice what happens in the screen reader. This site http://www.ehdp.com/vitalnet/ did validate in Bobby.  But again, look it in the screen reader.  This is a good example of sites that follow the letter of the law, but not the spirit. A great book is published by Glasshaus, Accessible Web Sites, Jim Thatcher.  Delves into a lot of trying to make a site truly compliant, not just verifiable by BOBBY. Another option (which is what I am starting to work towards) is using separating my content totally from presentation using XHTML and CSS2. By doing this, 508 becomes incredibly easy and truly useful. Glasshaus - Cascading Style Sheets: Separating Content from Presentation - Briggs Some sites if you are interested. http://www.glish.com http://www.webstandards.org http://www.alistapart.com Kevin Graeme wrote: > Sorry Jochem, but that just means it works in Lynx not that it meets > all the 508 criteria. Which parts of 1194.22 wouldn't it comply with then? Jochem

However Lynx delivers the content visually, I would argue that having a site come up in Lynx does not make it 508 compliant.  Lynx is a great testing tool to evaluate whether your page is usable without graphics, plug-ins, JavaScript, Java or CSS.  However being usable without those technologies still does not make a page 508 compliant. Other issues that Lynx doesn't handle are: accessible tables, complex data tables, skipping navigation links, accessible frames, accessible forms and timed responses (ok, no reader of any kind will be able to evaluate timed responses, but you get my drift). The only way to make sure those latter items are accessible is to check them through Bobby and again, even Bobby doesn't catch everything (though if you get Bobby approval, you can argue to the letter of 508 compliancy), and to put them through a screen reader (to make sure a site is truly compliant).   Your examples suggest that the problem isn't with Lynx but with screen readers. Lynx cleanly separates form and content (the goal of css standards). Readers don't seem able to perform such separation. So either developers have to go to extraordinary lengths to accommodate proprietary screen reader idiosyncrasies or we need a standards based screen reader, and of course standards based sites. On balance, Jochem seems right. Lynx delivers content.  So, Jaws over Lynx? Speech ready Lynx? drew Not necessarily the specific portions.  It might even comply legally, but that doesn't meant that it would be easily readable in a screen reader such as JAWS or Simply Web.   To give an example, use three programs.   Lynx - http://lynx.browser.org  Text Only Web Site. Any regular internet browser - IE, Netscape Simply Web 2000 http://www.econointl.com/sw/ A free text and speech web browser. Then, just for giggles, look at www.whitehouse.gov in each.  This is supposed to be a 508 compliant site but doesn't validate in Bobby. Reads really well in Lynx, but notice what happens in the screen reader. This site http://www.ehdp.com/vitalnet/ did validate in Bobby.  But again, look it in the screen reader.  This is a good example of sites that follow the letter of the law, but not the spirit. A great book is published by Glasshaus, Accessible Web Sites, Jim Thatcher.  Delves into a lot of trying to make a site truly compliant, not just verifiable by BOBBY. Another option (which is what I am starting to work towards) is using separating my content totally from presentation using XHTML and CSS2. By doing this, 508 becomes incredibly easy and truly useful. Glasshaus - Cascading Style Sheets: Separating Content from Presentation - Briggs Some sites if you are interested. http://www.glish.com http://www.webstandards.org http://www.alistapart.com Kevin Graeme wrote: > Sorry Jochem, but that just means it works in Lynx not that it meets > all the 508 criteria. Which parts of 1194.22 wouldn't it comply with then? Jochem

Maybe this is too obvious to be stated, but the definitive site for information regarding 508 compliance is http://www.section508.gov . Additionally, Macromedia has an extension (actually provided by a third party) that you can download for evaluating and fixing pages regarding accessibility and 508.  I would provide the URL but the query string is long and would probably create confusion.  Just search 508 at Macromedia.com and you can find it. Robert J. Polickoski Senior Programmer, ISRD Inc. (540) 842-6339 rpolickoski@isrd.com AIM - RobertJFP Reply-To: cf-talk@houseoffusion.com Date:  Fri, 8 Nov 2002 08:58:28 -0500 >Your examples suggest that the problem isn't with Lynx but with screen >readers. Lynx cleanly separates form and content (the goal of css >standards). Readers don't seem able to perform such separation. So either >developers have to go to extraordinary lengths to accommodate proprietary >screen reader idiosyncrasies or we need a standards based screen reader, and >of course standards based sites. > >On balance, Jochem seems right. Lynx delivers content.  So, Jaws over Lynx? >Speech ready Lynx? > >drew >Not necessarily the specific portions.  It might even comply legally, >but that doesn't meant that it would be easily readable in a screen ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- speech web >browser. > >Then, just for giggles, look at www.whitehouse.gov in each.  This is >supposed to be a 508 compliant site but doesn't validate in Bobby. >Reads really well in Lynx, but notice what happens in the screen reader. > > >This site http://www.ehdp.com/vitalnet/ did validate in Bobby.   But >again, look it in the screen reader.  This is a good example of sites >that follow the letter of the law, but not the spirit. > > >A great book is published by Glasshaus, Accessible Web Sites, Jim >Thatcher.  Delves into a lot of trying to make a site truly compliant, >not just verifiable by BOBBY. > >Another option (which is what I am starting to work towards) is using >separating my content totally from presentation using XHTML and CSS2. >By doing this, 508 becomes incredibly easy and truly useful. > >Glasshaus - Cascading Style Sheets: Separating Content from Presentation ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more ----- meets ----- Excess quoted text cut - see Original Post for more -----