I read this article, and I don't see what all of the fuss is. There's 
always been a debate on whether the ADA covers web sites or not, so it 
sounds like this will clarify that. I never understood, given how 
prevalent the web has become in employment and commerce, why the ADA 
wouldn't extend to web sites just as it does to brick and mortar store 
fronts. From what I read, the government wouldn't be coming up with the 
standards on what it makes for a web site to be accessible, but would 
rather be using W3C and WCAD. I'm sure, as with other laws, there would 
be a lengthy period where any such standards would be reviewed, and as 
consumers, we'd have plenty of chance for our input. For those who don't 
think the government should be involved, I'd like to see alternatives 
proposed or something other than rhetoric on why this is a bad idea.

On 04/08/2013 04:52 PM, Ana G wrote:
> I agree with the idea of broadening ADA to include websites and
> software. I encounter these issues all the time, and arguing 508 doesn't
> get me anywhere because that seems to be very narrow in scope. this is
> the next step toward equal access. the first step was getting into the
> building; now we've got to be able to do things once inside.
>
> And without turning this into a Republicans-vs-Democrats discussion, the
> federal government needs to step in because the free market and the
> natural order hasn't done jack.
>
>
>     VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
> Archived on the World Wide Web at
>     http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
>     Signoff: [log in to unmask]
>     Subscribe: [log in to unmask]

-- 
Christopher (CJ)
chaltain at Gmail


    VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
Archived on the World Wide Web at
    http://listserv.icors.org/archives/vicug-l.html
    Signoff: [log in to unmask]
    Subscribe: [log in to unmask]