[thelist] UK: Disability Discrimination and Web Site Design (wasDropdowns - good or bad?)

[the head lemur]

good news for accessibility advocates across the pond.

Section 508 required the same things as the DRC, which i posted at evolt
http://evolt.org/index.cfm?menu=8&cid=485&catid=20

here in the US, the ADA and section has had the guts cut out of the
legislation, hopefully temporarily.

one of the evils of the US forms of legislation is the 'amendment'

In June of this year the following bill was passed:
"Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001"

Buried in this bill is the following nugget:

from the Military Construction Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001
(HR. 4425; P.L. 106-246; July 13, 2000)

SEC. 2405. Section 508(f)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C.
794d(f)(1)) is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `Effective' and all that follows
through `1998,' and inserting `Effective 6 months after the date of
publication by the Access Board of final standards described in subsection
(a)(2),'; and

The deleted portion--(A) COMPLAINTS.--Effective 2 years after the date of
enactment of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998, any individual with
a disability may file a complaint alleging that a Federal department or
agency fails to comply with subsection (a)(1) in providing electronic and
information technology.
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking `2 years' and all that follows and
inserting `6 months after the date of publication by the Access Board of
final standards described in subsection (a)(2).'.

The deleted portion--(B) APPLICATION.--This subsection shall apply only to
electronic and information technology that is procured by a Federal
department or agency not less than 2 years after the date of enactment of
the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998.
This legislation which is now law, effectively cuts the legs from the
Section 508 regulations regarding web site accessibility for the disabled.

Two points that come to mind immediately.

There is no end date. This will under most circumstances, allow a group to
disguise "motion as activity" by holding meetings, generate interim reports
and collect a check.

There is no accountability. There is nothing in the regulations as
originally written that would create an undue burden on the government, with
the testimony given, with the accessibility standards that were used as a
guide in 1998.

The ADA folks have cited "Industry Concerns" as the reason behind this
maneuver.

The Justice department in their original survey;
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/report/web.htm
spanked the Adobe Folks hard regarding the use of PDF files for document
presentation. When the original study was done the PDF format was not
accessibility friendly.

I will be requesting the documents under the freedom of information act on
what led to this decision to put accessibility on hold here.

i will post what i learn

the head lemur-alan herrell
http://www.lemurzone.com
Member Evolt.org
http://www.evolt.org
Member Web Standards Project
http://www.webstandards.org