Slashdot Mirror

Some govt webmasters wine about this, but it's really a good thing, given that all should be able to access govt data.

NO. Do not use the font tags.

There are two lists of recommendations which would be helpful for you and your team:

• Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI)
• Section 508

There's more to operating a computer blind than just having a screen reader. Reading a web page is the easy part; if you have to see an icon and point a mouse at it, you can't even open the browser.

It needs to be operated either solely by keyboard, or have special modifications to support a force-feedback mouse.

The Macintosh has always supported accelerators, but when I last looked I couldn't find any way to access non-accelerated menu items without a mouse. Windows has supported mouseless operation from the beginning (not out of compassion for the blind, but because Windows 1.0 couldn't assume that you even owned a mouse.)

I'm a huge fan of the section 508 guidelines. Even non-disabled users can benefit from a display which is clear enough to be used by blind users. It forces the developer to think out a bit further ahead, but the end-user gains.

Suppose I drag a Word-openable document into a Word window containing an open document. Should Word open the dragged-in document? Should it embed an OLE object referencing the document?

The right way: the app should pop up a menu with options Open and Embed. Or the user can double-click the document to Open it in a new window. If a particular app creates a new window too slowly, consider it a bug in the app.

While there is no law of HCI stating that every mouse-operable action must always have a keyboard equivalent

Such a law does exist in the U.S. Code, namely Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. Anything basic to a computer's operation should not require the user's ability to operate a mouse. If an app does not obey this law, the U.S. government won't consider using it. Some users can't see the mouse pointer (blindness). Some users can't move a mouse precisely (amputation, palsy, etc).

the filter points people to my captcha, which is here and they have to type in "I am not a spammer" and then the letters in the graphic.

The problem with your approach and with any approach that uses a CAPTCHA is that it provides no way for a visually impaired human being to first-contact you. If you use a CAPTCHA, you can't do business with the U.S. government.

The following law citations refer to laws in effect in the United States. Your jurisdiction may or may not have laws of similar effect. Nothing you read on Slashdot is legal advice.

he suggests something quite sensible about graphical email addresses on web sites

How is this "sensible" under section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act? Users behind non-graphical user agents, such as users with vision disabilities, cannot turn a picture of an e-mail address into an e-mail address.

I, on the other hand, open first contact through a web form that spambots looking for @-signs can't pick up but which remains accessible to anybody whose non-graphical web browser supports HTML forms.

Seriously. Accessibility is the next big thing, and the design practices that result (cleaner code, even if it lacks semantics), are worth it in the long run, especially for maintanence.

A basic overview
Designing With Web Standards

"Section 508 requires that Federal agencies' electronic and information technology is accessible to people with disabilities.

Hehe, Slashdot's not really a shining example of web accessibility, but it's a good place to ask for help none-the-less.

The first stops for help (as someone's no doubt pointed out already) should be:

Section 508

Mark Pilgrim's excellent "Dive Into Accessibility"

The W3C's web accessibility guide

The UK Disabled Rights Commission website, paying particular attention to the superb Interactive Demos (e.g. Inaccessible Website Demo).

Buy these books:

Constructing Accessible Websites

Building Accessible Websites

Oh, and a copy of Zeldman's Designing With Web Standards for good measure.

Write your pages using validating HTML or XHTML, and style the pages using CSS.

Validate your webpages using the W3C Validator and your CSS using the W3C CSS Validator. Use Watchfire's Bobby to validate your pages, and aim for AAA rating (also note that Bobby has some helpful hints when it does find errors).

Other excellent resources (in no particular order):

http://www.webstandards.org/
http://www.w3.org/WAI/References/QuickTips/
http://www.mezzoblue.com/
http://www.meyerweb.com/
http://www.simplebits.com/
http://www.whatdoiknow.org/
http://www.stopdesign.com/

Ironically, being able to see again has meant Mr May has had to re-learn some activities, such as skiing or crossing the road, where he had become proficient when blind."

Interestingly, most blind people don't really consider blindness a "disability" per se, but simply a challengee to get used to. I've met countless people with various types of disabilities that really don't count them as "disabilities". For instance, I've spoken with the Deaf/Hard of Hearing who don't consider themselves "disabled", merely more of a "linguistic minority".

The problems they run into are simply a lack of equal access that people without a disability (or a severe disability) take for granted. For instance, in that old building that has yet to be renovated, a person with full usage of their legs will have no issue getting up the stairs, but someone who requires the use of a wheelchair, or might be in crutches, or has to use a walker, etc., will find it impossible to get into that building.

What most people forget, when responding to ADA laws, Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, W3C WAI, etc., is that these principles of equal and timely access do not just help those with disabilities, but those without as well.

For instance, trying to move a big cart full of computer equipment into that building? It sure would be easier with curbcuts, an elevator, and recessed door frames. Trying to access the web via that shiny new PDA you just bought? Too bad the site uses Flash navigation without a text equivalent... ad nauseum

The fact that this disability was part of his life, means that it wasn't a roadblock for him, merely an alternate route. He simply did things a different way.

> There is no government organization that you can call and have 508 explained to a luddite, or to a web designer.

Well, one could try Standards for Electronic and Information Technology: An Overview or What does Section 508 mean to You? for starters.

In the US, it's Section508 of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

When no one follows it.

Or in some cases, when a standard is so ill-defined as to allow for multiple incompatible interpretations, making it impossible to figure out if you've followed it.

Historically, browsers have consistantly been incompatible, plug-ins have been required to accomplish those things the browsers didn't accomplish, and the goal of content over form has been lost since the <b> tag stuck it's elbow in the <em> tag''s face.

Web site developers, meanwhile, are not only ignorant of the standards, but would be actively encouraged to ignore them by their client even if they knew. The people who build these sites do not care about accessability any more than spammers really care about those people who get mad at the e-mails.

At this point, testing with normal browsers has become impossible, since there are multiple versions of IE, both Mac and PC, on the streets, all of them rendering CSS differently, Mozilla has split yet again, Safari is trying to gain market share, and Opera is still causing web developers to pull their hair out.

And now you want an accessability standard?

I've been a beta tester. I've been a web designer. And I've had an internet account for a decade now. The industry is incapable of following the standards it currently has. It doesn't need new ones. It sure as heck isn't going to follow them. If someone needs an accessabilty guideline, they can use Section 508 for now. It'll do the job until the industry can get it's act together.

What I would like to see is a standard practice of generating your posted e-mail address into an image.

This would shut out people with less acute vision and would shut you out from contracting for the U.S. government.

The same company also makes keyboards with braille displays for regular computers. Good sites to visit on the topic of computer access for the blind are:

Trace Center
Smith-Kettlewell RERC
Section 508
W3C's WAI
National Center for Accessible Media

If you are in the States, see if there is a local Independent Living Center (sometimes also called Center for Independent Living). These offer support and information for people with disabilities in the local community.

On a separate note, if she is not sensitive to red light, you might be able to whip up a red "grayscale" display. Check the CRT and LCD manufacturing companies to see if they make such screens already for low light work settings (military).

A crazy thought: If the safe light frequency is too narrow for off the shelf screens, you could go the full geek route and construct a matrix using narrow frequency red LED's (like the banner message board signs) and feed the display with the text stream. One of the low vision/blind access software programs might be able to extract the text for the display.

Blender doesn't replace Lightwave.

What are the three most important things that Blender lacks?

Linux has no Poser

What? Most of the Linux fans who post here are posers.

but Linux won't do video capture

Say what?

No Flash.

<rant>
Flash is useless if half your audience blocks application/x-shockwave-flash at the firewall. The common uses of Flash tend not to work over a 48 kbps connection, which 80 percent of Americans are behind. And if you haven't yet shelled out the cash for the upgrade to Flash MX, it's near-impossible to make Section 508 compliant Flash content for clients that do business with the USA government.
</rant>

But I see your point anyway.

Dreamweaver is probably the easiest to replace, but nobody has done it yet, and nobody has an image/table mechanism like Fireworks and Freehand.

I have never used those Very Expensive Programs. That said, the next version of Mozilla Composer can resize images and tables. But why are you using tables for layout anyway? Tables are so 1997; CSS is 2003. Almost nobody uses 4.x browsers anymore, and all 5.x and 6.x browsers have some form of CSS support.

By placing it in an image along with some obfuscation designed to confuse OCR, automated response systems would be extremely difficult to write.

Correct; that's the entire point of The CAPTCHA Project, which has previously been discussed on Slashdot. But the current CAPTCHA systems, which rely on human recognition of features of an image, are inaccessible to blind people and to others who can't view images and are thus NOT Section 508 compliant.

Using ONLY color to distinguish items is a violation of section 508 web accessibility standards.

However, using color to distinuish items or convey information is not a violation in-and-of-itself, as long as there exists an alternate, accessible method . In this case, slashdot is using color AND the lack of a timestamp to communicate meta-data about the story.

(here's an example: apple used to 'blink' the menu bar [visual cue] to signal a system beep [audio cue] when your "beep" volume was 0)

The lack of a timestamp will become very helpful for users with screen-readers, total colorblind users and our friend Xaoswolf

If the DoJ is going to replace a web site, they ought to ensure it adheres to federal regulations, namely the Section 508 Accessibility guidelines. In this case, they left out the ALT attributes of the two images they included from the old IsoNews site; the images comprise the IsoNews logo. For these reasons, the page does not meet the 508 requirements.

This error might seem trivial, but the first line of text relies on the image to convey the name of the site (IsoNews) and therefore it violates the mandate of accessibility.

Furthermore, the ALT tags provided for the two logos do nothing more than reproduce the text in those images - the name of each agency. Those ALT tags don't even attempt to convey the visual information contained in those images, such as an eagle clutching an olive branch, the latin motto of the DoJ, or the scales and key within the Customs Service seal.

ps - The name "Lissard" for school admin s/w reminds me of a particular school admin: Police Academy Cmndt. Eric Lassard. :)

use a turing test prevent automated registrations.

Current automated turing tests reject users behind text terminals (such as blind users on speech readers or Braille terminals) and thus do not conform to Section 508 of the U.S. Rehabilitation Act. I'd assume that VA Software (Slashdot's parent company) wouldn't want to lose such an opportunity to market SourceForge enterprise source control software.

Since this is something I do on a daily basis at work, allow me to go over some of the things I do to make sure a web site is accessible.
First of all, layout of a page is important. Framesets are poorly implemented in text-only browsers and screen readers. Things are getting better, but they're not perfect yet.
Standards. I really can't stress this enough. My experience has taught me that following the government's Section 508 and W3C's Accessibility standards offer the widest range of compatibility with accessibility software. Additionally, using XHTML 1.0 Transitional works better than strict or HTML 4.01. Although it seems logical to follow these rules, there are a lot of websites that still use tables for layout (hell on a screen reader) or forget image alt tags. Despite following these, I do miss a lot.
My preference for writing web pages is to use NotePad (I'm sorry, the whole office runs Windows and I am not allowed to use Linux/Unix) to write my pages. None of that FrontPage or DreamWeaver or WYSIWYG stuff for me. FrontPage seems to take joy in proprietary tags, DreamWeaver has plug-ins available for accessibility but they are lacking.
To cover for my own lapses when authoring, I turn to a number of tools. Running EVERY page through W3C's various validators is very helpful. Although all that gets me is standard's compliant page, its less work later when I use a text browser and screen reader. Along those lines, I check every page in Lynx (yippee for cygwin) and JAWS. Both are very helpful in making them all accessible.
Perhaps the greatest tool at my disposal is an actual blind person. She has been instrumental in learning how to create accessible pages. Sticking to the standards just doesn't always cut it.
All in all, it has really become second nature to write HTML that is accessible. Once one gets in the groove of things, its very easy.
In conclusion, writing accessible code depends a lot on adhering to standards, but writing logically and cleanly does a world of wonder towards making clean HTML code.

What's your opinion about the Section 508 laws in that they almost ignore the existence of the work developed by the W3C's WAI group?

Why have the USA created a different set of rules? We all have learned that having several standards is always worst than a single one. Developers don't want to worry about which standard to implement

Why haven't they done the same as other countries that simply adapted WAI standards?

From W3C's comment on Section 508:

In diverging from evolving consensus on Web accessibility, the provisions in the NPRM have the effect of fragmenting the industry standard rather than harmonizing with voluntary consensus industry standards as advised by a U.S. Government directive. Should the proposed provisions go into effect as is, Sec. 508 would not only fail to take advantage of supporting provisions for accessibility in Web-based authoring tools, browsers, accessibility checkers, and existing training materials; but also complicate implementation of accessibility features in these products, potentially increasing the cost of compliance.

What do you think of the Section 508 standard? A few Govt webmasters sometimes bemoan that it doesn't allow them to use the most sexy stuff. Although if you build to 508, your site will work for just about everyone.

Do you think Section 508 is a good model for private industry to use?

Looks like /. junked my link on Section 508 in the previous post.

The fact of the matter is that adding the words 'with a computer' to a process shouldn't fundamentally change the way we regard it, legally. There are already specific accessility guidelines in place for the federal government, i.e. Section 508. These guidelines should be followed by businesses as well.

The idea that a website that sells things is not a store, solely because it doesn't have a door and a roof is asinine. We live in an age where some of our largest retailers do not exist in any traditional sense, i.e. amazon.com, and many others offer special incentives that are only available if you use their web-based storefront, i.e. SouthWest's Click 'n Save fares.

I understand that the judge was under a great deal of pressure to find in this manner, because requiring websites to be accessible to people with disabilities would have non-trivial initial costs for big business, but arguing that a website which engages in commerce isn't a store is a lot like arguing over the meaning of the word 'is'.

Check out "bobby" here. I believe it is a govenment sponsored (IBM is government, right ;) ) program to find and repair potential barriers to people with disabilities. To test it, make sure to click the "Bobby" link in the upper-left corner. You can choose which set of guidelines to use: Web Content Accessibility 1.0, or U.S. Section 508 guidelines.

It, and the W3C's modified HTML 4 spec, seem to be trying to distance the presentation from the data, so that the data can be presented in a variety of formats, depending on the needs of the client.

This is a good thing, as affirmed in The Pragmatic Programmer (Andrew Hunt, David Thomas; Pub. Addison Wesley 10/1999; ISBN 0-201-61622-X, $37.99) reviewed here. I own this book, and find it to be an extremely practical, applicable, enjoyable and easy read.

I piped the output of Bobby and found it to be uncompliant. I thought that was funny.

Disclaimer: I work for the state of New York at Cornell University and am/will be responsible for several sites that must, by either state, federal, or sponsor mandate, be accessible.

Disclaimer disclaimer: I haven't started yet. :P

I'm surprised that there's been no mention of this yet, but there already are government standards for web site accessibility. They are not enforceable standards (unless you're a govt. agency), but they are quite thorough, and from the research I've done, about 85% of it is simply common sense and good web design practice anyway, with only a few additional considerations. IBM also has an accessibility initiative, as does w3c. Maintaining dual sites is certainly not required, and unless you're the sort of designer that puts flash in everything, it shouldn't be an enormous stretch to conform with them. (But then, it shouldn't be an enormous stretch to conform with w3c HTML standards either. Shoulda coulda woulda.)

Some links:
http://www.section508.gov -- Federal accessibility initiative.

http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ -- W3C Initiative

http://www-3.ibm.com/able/accessweb.html -- IBM Accessibility checklist

I suppose, in a perfect world, we wouldn't need the courts to tell us that we have to do things like this. I suspect that it is in most companies' best interests to have a site that everyone can use and from which everyone can make purchases. Even if the ADA lost, it's not exactly good press for your company when you have to go to court against them in the first place.

(I'm not saying that I disagree with the ruling; don't really have a qualified opinion on whether or not these standards should be law.)

I am also a web user who is disabled, though not blind. I can definitely understand what it's like to come to a web site that is nearly unusable due to very poor design decisions. I believe that any site that hopes to be accessable by anyone other than the author should at least have an idea of the ADA and Section 508.

Companies that want to make their sites more accessible, but don't want to build their own standards could always adopt the 508 standards and perhaps pick up some legal cover in the process.

Most of the rules are basic. It does hamstring you out of some of the more sexy things (flash is difficult) but it also keeps you true (you tend not to waste taxpayer's $$$ having to make silly flash intros).

If you have diehard GUI html designers in your shop, there are several plug-ins for Dreamweaver (and others) that force the code to be 508 compliant. Vi can write 508 code just fine.

Many COTS vendors now also have 508 compliant versions of their s/w, otherwise they can't sell to government.

To learn more, good place to start is the Section 508 homepage.

A law that applies to YOU is significantly different than a law that applies to the government. There is no Freedom of Information law that applies to you as a private individual. It would be awful. That doesn't mean that such a law that applies to the government is wrong.

It is no different than passing a law that requires the government to use Union labor. It will certainly cost more, but the People decided that, morally, it is the "right" thing to do.

If the People of California decide that, collectively, they believe in the moral advantages of Open Source, that they believe that it will make government functions more open to scrutiny (unlike the Florida County who agreed to use proprietary ballot machines that can not be accounted for beyond the word of the company), and if the People decide that government spending on Open Source will be better for the entire industry (as it will stop subsidizing monopolists and encourage development of Open Software), then they have every right to do so.

The Federal Government has new software standards (Section 508). They have imposed a burden that all new software must meet various accessability requirements. Only if there are NO alternatives can they use any other software. If one product costs $10 million dollars and the other is superior in every way including price, Section 508 requires the Government to choose the one that meets the standards.

One of the major arguments in support of this law is that it will spur all software developers to make their software accessible, and will thus spur investment in an otherwise small but useful market.

The DSSA is no different, morally, than Section 508. The Federal Government has to reject superior products for some purpose simply because they happen not to have a single feature.

PS: I don't live in California and I don't believe their version is a good well thought. I also have problems with Section 508.

I work for a company that does a number of web projects for the US government, and the big buzzword here is Section 508 compliance. This is federally mandated support for web users with disabilities that use readers and other assistive tools. It is a requirement for all government websites, although enforcement appears to be highly variable. From what I have gleaned, the rule of thumb is make the site Lynx-compliant and you're not too far off. By time you have true 508-compliance, you're not using very many of the cute IE tags, you're not using Flash (I know it's theoretically possible, but Flash & 508 absolutely do not mix), and you've eliminated a lot of the useless JPEG/GIF/Javascript menu junk. Unfortunately, some of our (government) clients are just thumbing their collective noses at the regulations right now, but 508-compliant sites do render just fine in just about anything.

Well, the obivous web site for you analyze is www.section508.gov. This web site is layed out quite well, meets section 508 guidlines (hopefully), but may or may not help you write your HTML code.

But, you must supply the same information in an accessible format, and that is not Flash, especially for the audience your site will have. Go ahead and use Flash, but make sure you supply the same information in an accessible format. Navigation and interactivity must be usable from both keyboard and mouse. All the text must be readable by text readers. Users must be able to have the ability to stop the animation and be given an unlimited amount of time to interact with the information (e.g. automatic slideshow should have a "manual" option).

I don't know if you've taken all this into consideration, but here are some links that will help you address accessibility issues:

• W3C WAI: Web Accessibility Initiative
• Section 508: Government Accessibility Laws and Guidelines
• UseIt.com: Jakob Neilsen's Usability Site
• Usable Web: Links about Web Usability

I'm a geek. I think Flash rocks (I don't use it myself). Sometimes the browser I am using is not the latest greatest Mozilla/Netscape/IE/Opera -- it's Lynx.

Assisitive Technology is not only for the blind. Assistive technology helps those people with low-vision, too. Screen reading technology and speech synthesis, for example, is always improving. AT supports users well enough that there is actually a sizable computer programmer population that is blind. Companies, such as Freedom Scientific, employ a number of blind programmers that actually produce screen-reading software!

The government is also helping VIPs as well, by passing legislation. Section 508, passed last June, mandates that all federal agencies, including those receiving federal funds (e.g., universities, state governments, etc.) have their Electronic and Information Technology (E&IT) be accessibile to ALL. Corporations (though not legally liable) are also gettin in the mix. Most companies are willing to accomodate a those with special needs. Speaking from experience, VIPs tend to be *extremely* loyal to their companies, which is very desirable to companies.

I realize that this is a difficult time for you, and I feel for you. But just remember, you are not alone, and you will not be forgotten by technology. You *still* will have career options.

PILSEN
Assistive Technology Specialist

This is an important issue for any US government website due to "Section 508". Basically, if it isn't accessible it isn't allowed. Guess I won't be getting this product anytime soon -- kind of a shame.

There are a number of projects in the open source community that address different accessibility issues. The Gnome accessibility project (http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gap/ ) is probably the most widely known and most publicized. However, most of the Linux accessibility projects are, by necessity, focused on the command line interface instead of the graphical desktops.

In general, there are several areas that accessibility focuses on: visual, hearing, mobility, and cognitive or learning impairments. Currently, visual impairment is getting a lot of attention, as many visually impaired users require a screen reader and speech synthesizer (either hardware or software) for output. There are a number of screen readers (Emacspeak, Speakup, and Jupiter, to name a few) available which use either hardware or software synthesizers, but currently all of them work only in console mode (except Emacspeak, which works from within the Emacs environment). The Gnome accessibility project is working on a screen reader for Gnome, called Gnopernicus ( http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gap/AT/Gnopern icus/index.html). Linux figureheads like Alan Cox are helping to write requirements for an adapter-ready kernel ( http://www.speechinfo.org/fdawg/). SuSE Linux automatically detects braille devices during installation, making it possible for visually impaired users to install Linux without sighted assistance. For users who do not require audio output, screen magnifiers, larger fonts, icons, and mouse pointers are available in both KDE and Gnome, in addition to other accessibility features.

For hearing impaired users, the ability to have visual cues, such a visual bell, is crucial. For those with mobility impairments, features like Sticky Keys, Toggle Keys, and Bounce Keys, as well as on-screen keyboards, can make it easier to type. It is also possible to configure a standard keyboard to take one-handed input. Voice recognition systems, such as Open Mind Speech or ViaVoice Dictation may be a more viable option for some. Users with epilepsy, which might be triggered by on-screen animations, must be able to turn off features like window opening/closing animation. For more information on these options, as well as those mentioned for visual impairments above, refer to the Linux Accessibility HOWTO ( http://www.linuxdoc.org/HOWTO/Accessibility-HOWTO/ index.html).

In June 2001, the US government enacted Section 508 ( http://www.section508.gov/), which requires that all government IT tools and services be accessible. This means that the government won't buy and IT tool or service unless it is compliant with the criteria outlined in Section 508. Thus, from a purely business perspective, it makes sense for the Linux community to address the accessibility issue. From the user's point of view, it makes even more sense. For example, a visually impaired Windows user might choose JAWS for Windows (a commonly-used Windows screenreader), which is $795 US. Alternative Windows screen reading applications are less expensive, but some require a hardware synthesizer, which can cost in excess of $1600 US. Users must also purchase the Windows OS. However, a Linux user can get the Emacspeak screenreader and ViaVoice software synthesizer (not to mention Linux), for FREE. This is one of the reasons that many visually impaired users, at least, are making the move to Linux.

Also consider those of us who wear glasses and use lower resolution and/or larger fonts/icons so that we can see the screen better - these are accessibility features. Someone with a broken arm could take advantage of dictation apps or a one-handed keyboard - also accessibility features. What about the next time you're in a noisy airport working on your laptop, and you can't hear the audio bell that alerts you to a new email? You'd turn on the viusal bell instead - again, an accessibility feature. Making Linux doesn't just benefit those who are "handicapped," it benefits everyone.

I've been working quite extensively within section508 guidelines which outlines electronic accesibility within government systems - from webpages, to software, to the photocopiers in the office. The statistics that are used in cases like this are misleading to those unfamilar with accesibility. You may not think that 1/6 people are 'handicap', but this term is fairly broad when used in this contex. The term also refers to the color blind, people with carpel tunnel syndrome, people with hearing-impairments (but not completely deaf), and the like - anyone who may require any assistance at all or may have difficulty navigating the web or a software product.

At the rate many of us are going, we're going to have weakened eyesight and carpel tunnel syndrome from so many hours on the computer. So we will be relying on many of these advances in accessibility options in the future.

I really recommend section508.gov which is a really great resource for accessibility.

I've been working quite extensively within section508 guidelines which outlines electronic accesibility within government systems - from webpages, to software, to the photocopiers in the office. The statistics that are used in cases like this are misleading to those unfamilar with accesibility. You may not think that 1/6 people are 'handicap', but this term is fairly broad when used in this contex. The term also refers to the color blind, people with carpel tunnel syndrome, people with hearing-impairments (but not completely deaf), and the like - anyone who may require any assistance at all or may have difficulty navigating the web or a software product.

At the rate many of us are going, we're going to have weakened eyesight and carpel tunnel syndrome from so many hours on the computer. So we will be relying on many of these advances in accessibility options in the future.

I really recommend section508.gov which is a really great resource for accessibility.

Thanks you for saying that.

Validation should be server-side, pages should work, and be accessible to everyone. And US government agencies have an extra responsibility.

(I just checked the section 508 website. They are using the ALT tags for holding long descriptions. Tut tut. And they have a big spiel about Javascript requirements and popping up new windowss. Both are naughty evil things to do. Hypocrites.)

US federal sites, and intranet applications may soon be required to meet conditions under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act which may make it difficult for them to create sites which only work with one browser, although not completely preventing their exploiting features of specific browsers.