A few points for you and other readers.

First, the actual documents outlining ADA building codes refers to them as guidelines. You can see some of it in the documents here: http://www.ada.gov/stdspdf.htm I apply that same verbiage with regard to websites.

And there is a lot of ambiguity in the law. Judicial rulings have not resulted in clear, codified laws regarding websites. Judicial rulings are interpretations of a law and can set precedent in how the next court cases may go. But that doesn’t codify a vague law.

Section 508 does not apply to private sector websites. But you are correct; it is law for federal agencies and organizations that work with those agencies.

http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=3

As for ADA, it applies to a specific list of places which must be accessible. The law still has yet to be modified to specifically address the web. Thus, there is still room for interpretation of the law and a lot of debate on the subject. This leads to the spirit of the law vs. letter of the law discussions. By pure letter of the law, there is nothing specifically outlining private sector websites and how they must be handled, as opposed to the very extensive and specific private sector building codes that the ADA outlines. Further, there is also nothing in the ADA that says Section 508 must be applied to private sector websites.

I would add that I and many other accessible designers take steps beyond even Section 508. It’s a good starting off point, but it could be better.

I think that if the law was that clear cut, accessible designers would be much more in demand. Considering the litigious nature of people in this country, we would see many more lawsuits. I suspect it’s safe to say that most websites, including most major corporations with deep pockets, are not very accessible, if at all.

That said its still good practice to design with Section 508 in mind. For those who like to think they don’t need an accessible site, National Federation for the Blind v Target Inc. has set quite a precedent that other organizations would do well to keep in mind. When another organization goes to court over this, lawyers and judges will look to that ruling for precedent. But there is no guarantee that a judge will follow that ruling. It is only a precedent, not a law.

A few points for you and other readers.

First, the actual documents outlining ADA building codes refers to them as guidelines. You can see some of it in the documents here: http://www.ada.gov/stdspdf.htm I apply that same verbiage with regard to websites.

And there is a lot of ambiguity in the law. Judicial rulings have not resulted in clear, codified laws regarding websites. Judicial rulings are interpretations of a law and can set precedent in how the next court cases may go. But that doesn’t codify a vague law.

Section 508 does not apply to private sector websites. But you are correct; it is law for federal agencies and organizations that work with those agencies.

http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID;=3

As for ADA, it applies to a specific list of places which must be accessible. The law still has yet to be modified to specifically address the web. Thus, there is still room for interpretation of the law and a lot of debate on the subject. This leads to the spirit of the law vs. letter of the law discussions. By pure letter of the law, there is nothing specifically outlining private sector websites and how they must be handled, as opposed to the very extensive and specific private sector building codes that the ADA outlines. Further, there is also nothing in the ADA that says Section 508 must be applied to private sector websites.

I would add that I and many other accessible designers take steps beyond even Section 508. It’s a good starting off point, but it could be better.

I think that if the law was that clear cut, accessible designers would be much more in demand. Considering the litigious nature of people in this country, we would see many more lawsuits. I suspect it’s safe to say that most websites, including most major corporations with deep pockets, are not very accessible, if at all.

That said its still good practice to design with Section 508 in mind. For those who like to think they don’t need an accessible site, National Federation for the Blind v Target Inc. has set quite a precedent that other organizations would do well to keep in mind. When another organization goes to court over this, lawyers and judges will look to that ruling for precedent. But there is no guarantee that a judge will follow that ruling. It is only a precedent, not a law.

Federal government web sites, and those sites paid for with federal tax dollars, are subject to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. This is is not a set of guidelines as you state. It is LAW. The use of the word “guidelines” has an air of being voluntary. Section 508 is not voluntary; it’s mandatory.

The recent Target lawsuit was filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as well as two state laws within California.

It is very important to address electronic accessibility correctly with respect to ADA and Section 508. The Target case used a very narrow interpretation of ADA, with some advocates considering the capitulation by Target as not really settling the issue. A stronger case was made with the two California state laws. However, the plaintiff took the easy way out and settled out of court. Many consider this to be a hollow victory.

Had this been a case brought under Section 508 with respect to a federal government web site, it would have been slam dunk.

We can only address web accessibility properly when the correct laws are cited and ambiguity as to the issues at hand are very, very clear. True disability is often in the mind and until that is overcome, more accessibility lawsuits to force the issue out in the open should be encouraged.

Federal government web sites, and those sites paid for with federal tax dollars, are subject to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. This is is not a set of guidelines as you state. It is LAW. The use of the word “guidelines” has an air of being voluntary. Section 508 is not voluntary; it’s mandatory.

The recent Target lawsuit was filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, as well as two state laws within California.

It is very important to address electronic accessibility correctly with respect to ADA and Section 508. The Target case used a very narrow interpretation of ADA, with some advocates considering the capitulation by Target as not really settling the issue. A stronger case was made with the two California state laws. However, the plaintiff took the easy way out and settled out of court. Many consider this to be a hollow victory.

Had this been a case brought under Section 508 with respect to a federal government web site, it would have been slam dunk.

We can only address web accessibility properly when the correct laws are cited and ambiguity as to the issues at hand are very, very clear. True disability is often in the mind and until that is overcome, more accessibility lawsuits to force the issue out in the open should be encouraged.

http://www.w3.org/WAI/

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/

http://diveintoaccessibility.org/

http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200603/evaluating_website_accessibility_part_1_background_and_preparation/

http://accessites.org/site/2007/07/confirming-a-web-sites-accessibility/

http://www.adobe.com/accessibility/

And the links in the original post also provide more information on the subject.