[Marketing-Public]Accessibility as a marketing opportunity

Moz Champion moz.champion at sympatico.ca
Tue, 31 Aug 2004 01:07:45 -0400

raiph wrote:

> raiph wrote:
>> If you knew me, you'd know I always try not to state anything I don't 
>> think
>> is well supported.
> Careful or not, I sometimes miss the wood for the trees.
> IE isn't a product.
> It's part of Windows.
> There's no Windows 98 VPAT, so no IE for 98 VPAT.
> But there is VPAT coverage of IE in the Windows 2000 and Windows XP 
> VPATs.
> I'm absorbing that now.
> love raiph
> _______________________________________________
> marketing-public mailing list
> marketing-public@mozilla.org
> http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/marketing-public
> Get involved - Check out the marketing projects that need help - 
> http://www.mozilla.org/projects/marketing
As I read it.

Section 508 only applies to Federal sites and/or software provided to 
Federal agencies.  Mozilla is wise to become compliant because it opens 
the doorway to Federal use of such.

Priceline and Ramada settled (with no admission of guilt) under the ADA 
act, that applies to purveyors of accomadation. The websites, NOT the 
software used to access them. As noted the relavent act is more 
stringent in the UK

As such, while worthwhile to conform to 508 compatability standards as 
much as possible,  the cases you mention dont really relate to the 
software in use at the time, but the websites themselves.  I didnt 
review the case transcript,  but I consider it most likely it was IE in 
use at the time.  In any case, if the websites had been able to claim it 
was the software creating the inaccessibility, they would have, they didnt.

In any case, there is no law that mandates programs MUST become ADA, or 
508 compliant.
508 , as noted only applies to Federal websites and to software provided 
to Federal agencies
ADA, as noted, only applies to sites that provide accomadation
While it is adviseable for Mozilla to seek 508/ADA compliance as much as 
is possilble, currently the acts simply do not apply to the software.

My note was meant to caution in that claims about a rivals lack of or 
failure to meet a certain standard does bear a exacting standard.
In your original message you claimed Microsoft had not even assessed 
Internet Explorer, a fact that you have since rectified, as is has been 
assessed within the assessment of the program (the systems) it was 
intregated with.
Why do you expect Windows 95 or Windows 98 to be VTAP assessed? They 
existed BEFORE section 508 did (or before it was strengthened at least).

I suggest that if Mozilla does contact web masters with regard to 508, 
ADA, or such legislation that may exist in other countries, that it do 
so without making reference to rivals software.  Or without claims as to 
the suitability of other (rival) products as to a desired function.