This report is pseudo science at best. Further, alarmist talk might make for good copy but it doesn't necessarily reflect reality. That's not to dismiss the need for an accessible web and continued education in all areas where it is being constructed. But let's please stop repeating this myth that the feds are about to lower the proverbial boom on every web site being posted here in the U.S., or even some subsection of those being posted. I disagree with the entire tone/implication of this supposed research in that the author seems to be saying big bad government is mandating these new rules that even the groups that work with the population the rules are intended to help can't follow. Rather, the most recent initiatives that I'm aware of in the legislative arena are the 508 rule making happenings which are intended to give guidance to the federal government in the entire information technology purchasing process. Without going into full details, a few points to keep in mind: 1. The basic methodology of the supposed research has a fundamental flaw. Given that the author simply ran each main address through Bobby, for all the author knows, the first link on each page is to a text only version of the page that has no accessibility problems. This may or may not be a good idea in terms of web design but without actually visiting each page you simply don't know what's happening on the page. 2. Bobby has never claimed to be the one-stop judge of accessibility. There are multiple things to consider when designing for accessibility and it is impossible to test for them all automatically. 3. What forthcoming legislation is the author talking about when he states in explaining the reasons for this accessibility analysis: "(2) To evaluate a highly targeted group of web sites for compliance with such standards, especially in light of forthcoming U.S. requirements for sites of organizations which receive government funding. In reality, no new law has been passed in this area. The ADA, which does mandate effective communication, has been around for quite sometime. The author is simply repeating the widely reported myth that the 508 regulations being worked on right now are this horrific new legislation. Reproduced below is an explanation of the real implications of this legislation from Judy Brewer, director of the Web Accessibility Initiative. Be aware that the article referenced in Judy's post is not the pseudo research to which I'm replying. Judy's post can be found at: http://truman.fac.org/forum/messagedetail.asp?msgID=16933 Subject: Clearing Up Some Inaccuracies Author: Judy Brewer Date: 5/3/99 6:00:53 PM Adam Clayton Powell III's article contains a great many inaccuracies. He did not interview nor even attempt to contact either of the individuals he quotes in his article, myself included; nor does it appear that he checked his facts on some other information in his article. No U.S. law requires accessibility of every U.S. Web site as he implies; yet accessibility is a significant issue for many Web users, and worth getting straight. A few things to mention: - There is not much in the way of "new law" here in the U.S., as he implies. Section 508, requiring accessibility of information technology procured by the federal government, has been on the books since 1986; it was amended in 1992 and again in 1998. - The 1998 amendment requires the U.S. Access Board to start a rule-making procedure for standards for electronic and information technology purchased by the federal government. The law doesn't require the Access Board to finish that till sometime next year, contrary to what is implied in Mr. Powell's article. - In the meantime, federal agencies' use of information technology is covered by Section 508--just as it's been for the past thirteen years. So if Mr. Powell isn't a federal agency, he doesn't have to worry about Section 508--but on the other hand, were he or someone among his friends or family to have a disability and to need information from a federal agency in the U.S., he'd have the right to get it from that U.S. federal agency in an accessible form because of Section 508. That's probably not a bad thing. - Does Section 508 apply to anyone doing business with the federal government, in that the Web sites of those businesses would need to be accessible? That's not in the law. It does apply to the products or services that the federal government actually buys. - Will the rules apply "possibly soon afterward to every Web site posted in the U.S.," as, he states, "the government announced"? Mr. Powell seems mistaken here, as the government has made no such announcement and would have no basis under existing law. If he's talking about the Department of Justice letter to federal agencies, which he said he could not find, it's available at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/508/508home.html. Jamie McCarthy provides more in-depth clarifications in his forum response at http://truman.fac.org/forum/messagedetail.asp?msgID=16678, as do other writers in this forum. I would note however that the mention in the ZDNet article of Section 508 applying generally to businesses was not from either of the two individuals whom the ZDNet reporter interviewed. Under another law that Mr. Powell does not mention, the Americans with Disabilities act--as stated in a September 1996 Department of Justice Opinion, "the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires State and local governments and places of public accommodation to furnish appropriate auxiliary aids and services where necessary to ensure effective communication with individuals with disabilities, unless doing so would result in a fundamental alteration to the program or service or in an undue burden." You can find more information on this at http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/foia/tal712.txt. Again this is not a new law, and the DOJ opinion is two and half years old. In the meantime, considerable good work has gone into the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, which the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative has been developing. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) is an international industry consortium which develops consensus specifications to promote the interoperability and evolution of the Web. The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines, currently a W3C Proposed Recommendation, provide information on how to ensure that Web sites can be accessed by people with various disabilities--for site designers who don't want to miss that marketplace, or who want their sites to work well on different kinds of devices than graphical desktop browsers only. They may or may not become a useful reference for people who for whatever reason--government access, business plan, etc.--have some kind of requirement for accessibility. If you're interested in learning more about Web access, visit us at http://www.w3.org/WAI. Regards, Judy Brewer Director, Web Accessibility Initiative, W3C 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