So what you're saying is that compliance will be difficult for any site that was designed before the new rules (which will come out in a year or two) go into effect.
You can't ignore what doesn't currently exist, you can only ignore it after it exists.
If any of the sites I run falls under these requirements, they will probably have to come down, since I don't have time to go back and redo everything that has already been done. That means that people who can't currently get to my content still won't be able to, and those who can will lose it. That sounds like a lose-lose situation to me.
WCAG 2.0 has been out for two years. The revision to Section 508 will be based on it. http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
The problem it the programes the read websites AKA JAWS plane out suck. The amount of extra code needed is a pain. Get Jaws to work and we are fine
Very little extra code is needed, unless you're referring to ARIA, which is necessary because rich content is extremely nonstandard. As a result, there's no way for assistive technologies to know what does what without a bit of extra code to make it clear.
...but I don't think most businesses (or most people, generally) have anything to object to here. What's likely to make people anxious about changes to the ADA is uncertainty over what those changes will involve.
As a web developer, my main concern is just knowing what I'll have to do or do differently. It would be helpful if articles like this -- or their summaries -- provided links to the proposed guidelines. Personally, I'd prefer to get a head start on this so that my clients and I don't end up rushing to implement changes as the last moment.
Here you go: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/ WCAG 2.0 is what the upcoming revision to Section 508 is being based on.
That it takes a LOOOOOOOOOT more than a few alt tags, standard compliant markup and Flash that can be screen scraped to be ADA compliant. Its a freagin nightmare, and a lot of people who think they are compliant, are not, unless their web site is EXTREMELY simple.
For all practical purpose, its impossible to ACTUALLY be compliant. They're just a bit soft over it...
No, it isn't. We're effectively talking about WCAG 2.0 here (the revision to Section 508 that should come out in a year or two is being based on it), and AA compliance is really not difficult, unless you ignore accessibility until after you've finished designing a site. A little forethought and it's easy as pie.
Please tell me - do we get ANYTHING out of e-voting apart from a time saving between closing the polling stations and declaring the result?
People with disabilities can vote privately and securely, like everyone else.
Where I went to vote, anyone who wished had the option of bringing an assistant. I recall doing this for my grandmother when her health was failing. She couldn't see well enough to read the ballot much less fill in a circle. So, I would read the ballot to her, and she would tell me what to mark.
I'm all for throwing money at math and CS (it keeps me employed), but I still think that E-voting is unnecessary. Just use paper. With paper, the ballots can be recounted in front of a group of representative for each side whenever there is a dispute. It's simple and crystal clear to the vast majority of voters. The only disadvantage is that it's slow, but so what? Voting is important, we can afford to slow down a little and do it carefully.
So people with disabilities do not have the right to an anonymous vote, but you do? What about people who don't have a friend or relative to bring with them? Should they just trust whoever volunteers to help them, even though they have no way to verify whether or not they're voting correctly on their behalf?
Agreed, E-voting is the classic solution in search of a problem.
Unless you have a disability, in which case it is the classic "solution to a problem". GP: "marking a circle with a pen" is impossible for someone who is blind or has dexterity issues. Whether or not e-voting would currently benefit other people is irrelevant; it is needed, and that need is growing.
while eye tracking is amazing when it comes to making very fast gross movements it falls apart when it comes to fine movements
Eye trackers have been tracking fine movements for decades. In the last 5-10 years, the equipment has gotten smaller, faster, and easier to use. The problem isn't the tracking, it's the eyes. Your eyes jump around approximately 3-4 times per second, and they don't always go where you think they do. Due to the way the visual system works, the mouse/cursor would just jump around the screen every few hundred milliseconds, and would serve as more of a distraction than an aide. Very minor calibration issues also cause problems if the mouse/cursor is displayed in real time; being off even a few pixels (which is pretty much guaranteed) results in the user "following" the cursor around on the screen.