Kelly:

I find it quite ironic that ITAA has posted their comments in PDF
format.
I have written the webmaster asking if they have it in any other format.

--
Kathleen Anderson
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
URL OSC: http://www.osc.state.ct.us/
URL ACCESS: http://www.cmac.state.ct.us/access/
AWARE: http://aware.hwg.org/




Kelly Pierce wrote:
>
> By Brian Krebs, Newsbytes
> WASHINGTON, D.C., U.S.A.,
> 30 May 2000, 4:44 PM CST
>
> A trade group representing a good portion of the high-tech industry
> wants the federal government's proposed Web site accessibility standards
> for persons with disabilities to be "technology neutral" solutions, and
> has asked that the timeframe for implementing those standards be
> delayed.
>
> At issue is a little-known amendment to the Workforce Investment Act of
> 1998 - referred to as Sec. 508 - that requires all federal agencies to
> procure software and information technology that is accessible to the
> disabled, specifically the blind.
>
> When Congress modified the Workforce Investment Act to include the
> disability requirements, it had intended to draft implementation
> guidelines for IT manufacturers six months thereafter. But the
> standards-setting body charged with drafting the regulations - the
> Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, or the
> Access Board for short - did not release its proposed guidelines until
> mid March, 2000.
>
> According to the wording of the proposed regulations, any technology
> vendors that fail to build into their systems hardware and software
> accessible to the disabled will not be permitted to sell their products
> or services to the federal government.
>
> All of which means that Web site designers and vendors of printers, fax
> machines, copiers and information kiosks could be prevented from selling
> their wares to 81 federal agencies and more than 250 agency components,
> if they do not conform to the recommendations by August 7. At that time,
> end users would be permitted to file formal complaints or lawsuits
> against technology providers.
>
> Beyond the repeal of the quasi-arbitrary deadline, the computer industry
> is lobbying for watered-down design requirements, arguing that
> substituting "technical and functional performance criteria," for more
> specific design requirements might be a more flexible solution in light
> of the relatively hurried pace of technological change.
>
> "While we take into account existing products and technologies that
> benefit disabled users, we must avoid getting mired in detail that
> design requirements present as newer, faster, more reliable advancements
> are being developed every year by the IT industry," said Harris Miller,
> president of the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA).
>
> Because today is the deadline for public comment on the Access Board's
> recommendations - and the Board's statutes call for implementation of
> the standards within six months of their formal issuance - the ITAA is
> also asking the board to delay the effective date until at least six
> months after they are formally announced.
>
> Once the public comment period closes, the Access Board must review the
> comments and decide which ones to incorporate. If it makes any changes,
> the board must redraft and approve the altered standards. The
> recommendations must then be given to the Office of Management and
> Budget (OMB), which has 90 days to accept or reject the standards.
>
> Given such requirements, neither the Access Board nor the high-tech
> industry is likely to meet the Aug. 7 deadline. The only way to delay
> implementation date, Access Board members say, would be to have Congress
> pass a law to that effect.
>
> Two weeks ago, the Senate passed legislation to do just that in an
> amendment to a 2001 military construction appropriations bill. The
> amendment, offered by Sen. James M. Jeffords, R-Vt., would postpone the
> effective date of the standards until six months after formalization.
> The measure will now need to be worked out in a House-Senate conference
> committee, as the House already passed its own appropriations bill - but
> without the Section 508 allowances.
>
> House Appropriations Subcommittee staffers were not immediately
> available for comment.
>
> The ITAA also has asked for clarification on one particularly murky
> statute that requires federal agencies to procure, maintain and use
> disability-accessible technologies, so long as it does not cause them
> "undue burden" to do so. The ITAA would like to know exactly when and in
> what type of situation an exception would apply.
>
> The Access Board's Web site is http://www.access-board.gov .
>
> ITAA can be found on the Web at http://www.itaa.org .
>
> Reported by Newsbytes.com, http://www.newsbytes.com
>
> VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
> To join or leave the list, send a message to
> [log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
> "subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
>  VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
> http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html


VICUG-L is the Visually Impaired Computer User Group List.
To join or leave the list, send a message to
[log in to unmask]  In the body of the message, simply type
"subscribe vicug-l" or "unsubscribe vicug-l" without the quotations.
 VICUG-L is archived on the World Wide Web at
http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/vicug-l.html