LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for AXSLIB-L Archives

   

AXSLIB-L Archives

AXSLIB-L Archives


AXSLIB-L@LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

AXSLIB-L Home

AXSLIB-L Home

AXSLIB-L  January 2001

AXSLIB-L January 2001

Subject:

Re: A for ACCESSIBILITY

From:

Audrey Gorman <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Library Access -- http://www.rit.edu/~easi

Date:

Mon, 8 Jan 2001 16:44:04 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (286 lines)

Susan,

Thanks for your suggestion.  It makes me feel like I'm on the right track, since I'll be meeting with Carol Boyer at RESNA either tomorrow (Tuesday) or Wednesday.  This is one of the items for discussion.  Anyone else at RESNA I should try to talk to?

Audrey

>>> [log in to unmask] 01/08/01 16:08 PM >>>
Audrey,
        I suggest that you invite the people from RESNA (Rehab Engineers Society of
North America) to exhibit. I am a member of RESNA, and find that the
publications and listservs bring a helpful tilt to my lenses. They have an
Education Special Interest Group as well as one for users of the services.
                                                Susan

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Library Access -- http://www.rit.edu/~easi
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Audrey Gorman
> Sent: Friday, January 05, 2001 3:57 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: A for ACCESSIBILITY
>
>
> Ron,
>
> Thanks for your clarification.  I agree with most of what you
> have to say.  However, my information came from direct questions
> to contact people at the Department of Education, so my take is
> that we really don't know anything yet for sure.  It's all
> educated guesses/speculation.  And I'm no lawyer either!
>
> I can only hope that the interpretation that includes the largest
> number of libraries will be the one that emerges!  My plan is to
> work within ALA to get an official interpretation that all
> libraries can work from with confidence.  In the meantime, we're
> hoping that we can get the proposed ALA policy "Library Services
> for People with Disabilities" passed by ALA Council at the
> Midwinter meeting.  And I'm working on a new area in the exhibit
> for the Annual Conference in San Francisco.  It will be called
> the "Accessibility Pavillion."  Any suggestions for vendors to
> include or help with recruiting vendors would be greatly appreciated.
>
> In the meantime, I heartily agree that Section 504 applies to
> libraries and that they would be very wise indeed to use the
> Access Board 508 standards as a jumping-off point or renewal
> touchstone for their own accessibility efforts.  Further,
> Department of Justice interpretations of ADA-related cases have
> stated that web sites and other means of information
> dissemination are communication covered by ADA as well.  The
> handwriting on the wall is very clear so far.
>
> The real issues go much deeper. To put it crassly: What it really
> comes down to is who needs a strong stick to even slavishly
> follow the letter of the law versus who understands the spirit of
> disability law as a body and is willing to do the right thing
> without being coerced. There are lots of people and organizations
> that fal somewhere between these poles, of course.  There's lots
> of work to do. Our core mission in this area, as I see it, is to
> help libraries provide the greatest access to the most
> information to the largest number of people possible.
>
> Regards,
> Audrey
> Chair, ALA Web Accessibility Task Force
> Director, Roads To Learning
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 01/04/01 17:57 PM >>>
> First I must state that I am not a lawyer so this is not a legal opinion,
> but let me share with the list a briefing paper that I prepared for my
> university. This letter is based on the best information currently
> available, but also represents a proactive interpretation of the impact of
> Section 508. I should also note that this discussion is somewhat
> rhetorical,
> because if you are subject to Section 504 of the Rehab Act then
> it would be
> in the best interest of your institution to have the kind of standards 508
> mandates in place anyway.
>
> I am very sure the courtswill be involved in the final determination of
> this, and additionally I would not be surprised if 508 does not get some
> more revision in the next session of congress. For those of us that have
> followed OCR rulings and case law particularly on the west coast
> I think the
> legal trends are very evident. The other thing that should be
> noted is that
> these are Standards not Guidelines, and that is very important
> from a legal
> perspective.
>
> I do not think anyone would be naive enough to state that it does
> not apply
> to state agencies, that is clearly stated in the provisions of
> the Tech Act,
> and in the letters of assurance states have had to submit as a
> part of their
> receipt of Tech Act funds. What is in question is what a "State
> Agency" is.
> What the Department of Ed. will be providing is guidance on
> compliance, not
> clarification of its applicability. The one thing that is up in the air is
> who will be responsible for enforcement, and I would venture to guess it
> will not be the OCR, but may be directly enforced by the Department of
> Justice.
>
> If you want more informatin on this I would suggest you consult the
> following web sites:
>
> http://www.resna.org/taproject/policy/initiatives/508.html
>
> http://www.section508.gov/docs/508law.html
>
> http://www.section508.gov/docs/AT1998.html
>
> http://www.section508.gov/requirements.html
>
> Ron
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Ron Stewart, Director
> Technology Access Program
> Information Services
> Oregon State University
> 109 Kidder Hall
> Corvallis, Oregon  97331
> Phone: 1.541.737.7307
> Fax:   1.541.737.2159
> E-mail: [log in to unmask]
> WWW: http://tap.orst.edu
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Schmetzke, Axel [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 3:14 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: A for ACCESSIBILITY
>
>
> Hi Ron,
>
> I read with much interest your response to Audrey's posting. I'm a bit
> puzzledby your statement that Sect. 508 "will most likely apply to ....
> public and college university libraries in the majority of instances." I
> thought that this is really up in the air at this point--an
> impression that
> got confirmed by what Doug Wakefield stated during the recent EASI
> interview.  According to Doug, the applicability of Sect. 508 to State
> universities has to be clarified by the Department of Education
> (recent EASI
> interview). Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if, ultimately, the courts
> would also have a say in this matter.
>
> Would you share with us your information source? What information do you
> have that has shaped your opinion on this issue?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Axel
>
> Axel Schmetzke
> Library
> University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Stewart [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 3:13 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: A for ACCESSIBILITY
>
>
> I would like to make a couple of clarifications to your message.
> Section 508
> applies to "State Agencies" in states that have received funding under the
> Tech Act, which in a nutshell is all states. The issues come up
> in what is a
> state agency, ad here is were you may find that most local libraries are
> exempt, since they are not state agencies. It will most likely apply to
> state libraries, and public and college university libraries in
> the majority
> of instances.
>
> They current standards will go into effect on February 21st, 2001, and
> agencies will have six months from that date to comply with the standards.
>
> Ron Stewart
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Audrey Gorman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2001 9:18 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: A for ACCESSIBILITY
>
>
> Ellen and all,
>
> I too believe that Section 508 may be a big help to accessibility
> advocates
> in the long run.  However, 508 applies (ie, has lgal teeth)for federal
> agencies, not the society at large.  There are even some federal agencies
> that are exempt. It may apply to some state functions when
> federal money is
> involved, maybe even state libraries.  That's still being teased
> out by the
> Department of Justice and others.
>
> But experts on 508 whom I've asked say that most libraries
> probably are not
> subject to the requirements of the statute.  Besides that, the federal
> accessibility standards still must go through a comment period from
> Congress.  At best, they won't be technically applicable even to federal
> entities until at least June of 2001. As far as libraries are
> concerned, we
> need to get an official legal opinion through appropriate channels.
>
> Section 508 may be a sign of things to come (let's support and work toward
> that bright time), but it's not there yet.  If, as we know, libraries are
> not yet compliant with the ADA and Section 504, which do apply to
> them, why
> ask them to wave the flag for or get excited about a statute that
> doesn't or
> might not?
>
> Let's use Section 508 as an example, a shining bellweather, when we talk
> about the bigger issue of accessibility.  Let's talk about vendor reaction
> and the companies that are jumping on the bandwagon. Let's not tell
> libraries that 508 definately applies to them.  T do so would be a very
> negative thing, with potentially devestating backlash and loss of
> credibility for all of us who advocate for access for all,
> including people
> with disabilities.
>
> Regards,
> Audrey
>
>
> >>> [log in to unmask] 01/02/01 15:55 PM >>>
> Dear Accessibility Advocates-Everyone:
>
> A happy, healthy, and thanks t the Access Board and the new
> Section 508, ACCESSIBLE New Year!
>
> Whatever meetings and sessions we attend at ALA Midwinter and
> elsewhere, the "Digital Divide" program included, let us
> celebrate the new Section 508 standards by making our slogan,
> chorus, and refrain that we "sing" proudly in uniso:
>
> ACCESSIBILITY!
>
> - The need for accessibility is universal.  Everyone needs
> access, whether it be to healthcare, the local grocery store, the
> Post Office, a mode of transportation (especially after a 20-foot
> snowstorm), information, reading materials, or the Internet, etc.
> So everyone inherently personally relates, appreciates, and thus
> supports accessibility - when framed as "accessibility" in
> positive terms.
>
> - Accessibility is POSITIVE language at its finest. As Madison
> Avenue teaches us so well: Positive Language Sells. Positive
> Language Wins.*  Every Time.
>
> [*ex. The title of the successfully passed "Children's Internet
> Protection Act" - also an accessibility issue]
>
> - Accessibility puts us at the top of every [English-language]
> index, and through positive language, at the top of everyone's
> agenda.
>
> Ellen Perlow
> Chair, ALA ASCLA Century Scholarship Committee
> "Celebrating a New Century that Celebrates Diversity"
> http://www.ala.org/ascla/centuryscholarship.html
> Next Application Submission Deadline: March 1, 2001
> ALA 2001 Scholarship Application page:
> http://www.ala.org/work/awards/scholars.html
> Have YOU recruited/applied to be a Century Scholarship applicant today?
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Manager of Information Services
> School of Library and Information Studies
> Texas Woman's University
> P.O. Box 425438
> Denton, TX76204-5438
> Tel.: 940-898-2622  Fax: 940-898-2611
> Web: http://twu.edu/~s_perlow/
> E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
April 2018
March 2018
January 2018
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
November 2016
September 2016
March 2016
January 2016
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
December 2014
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager