[Qgis-community-team] Section 508 compliance for QGIS

[David Saeger]

All,


After attending a wonderful conference on Federal Applications of OS Geo
software I am re motivated to approach completing a VPAT for QGIS. My
estimation of the importance of doing so was reinforced after hearing some
knowledgeable friends of the OS Geo community who work in the federal
environment bemoan how hard it is to get software approved and specifically
point to the VPAT (or lack therof) as a reason why.

After my first go at this, there are a items VPAT that I am unable to
answer. It occurs to me that it would be great to use the mechanics of a
platform like stack-exchange to track the discussion and answers to some of
the questions posed by the VPAT and as an experiment I posted one of the
questions I had here:
http://gis.stackexchange.com/questions/53454/qgis-vpat-section-1194-21c

The only thing I have received so far is a comment telling me that the
userbase of this forum is oriented toward a crowd who may not be suited to
answering these types of questions. I agree that it is a bit of an unusual
type of question to ask on that forum. I think however, that utilizing a
forum like stackexchange to help develop the VPAT would be a great example
of how OS projects can get these types of regulatory documents filled out
in a transparent and efficient way. I also think that it is possible that
some of the questions on the VPAT might benefit from input from a wider
audience than exists on the QGIS dev list serve.

Any thoughts? Should I just post my questions here? Do any of you have
suggestions for a better venue? Any of y'all want to take a crack at the
item I listed on stackexchange?

Thanks,

-David




On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Nathan Woodrow <madmanwoo at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hey David,
>
> I think it's a great idea.  Anything that can help the movement of QGIS
> into the government sector is a good thing.
>
> I would find it hard to see that we wouldn't want to post it on the site
> if it is completed.
>
> Happy to be one of the devs to lead a hand if you need any questions
> answered/reviewed.
>
> I have added the qgis-developer list and qgis-psc to the topic as you will
> get more people looking over it.
>
>  PSC what are your thoughts?
>
> Regards,
> Nathan
>
>
>
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 6:21 AM, David Saeger <saegeritup at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> After recently getting QGIS approved for use at the federal agency that I
>> work for, a couple things came to light that could make it easier for users
>> in the federal IT environment to utilize QGIS. Namely the fact that QGIS
>> has not made efforts/publicized efforts to prove that it is Section 508<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_508_Amendment_to_the_Rehabilitation_Act_of_1973>compliant.
>>
>> Section 508 is an amendment to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 which deals
>> with electronic and information management technologies. It contains
>> technical standards against which products can be evaluated to determine
>> if they would unduly disadvantage disabled peoples through their use. While
>> not meeting these standards is not necessarily a dead end for using getting
>> software approved in the USG IT environment, meeting it can certainly
>> smooth the process.
>>
>> I know that there are a lot of users in various government agencies who
>> would love to use QGIS if it was generally approved by there CIO's,
>> especially in these times of budget austerity. It strikes me that it would
>> not be too difficult to try and meet this standard and make it easier to
>> make the case for approval.
>>
>> Here is a general guidelines for Section 508 compliance:
>> http://www.uspto.gov/about/offices/cio/section508/14e.jsp
>>
>> Am still researching but I think that all that would need to be done is
>> check to see if QGIS meets the criteria in the standard, note the specific
>> instances where it does not, and post these findings on the QGIS website
>> using a Voluntary Product Accessibility Template  (VPAT). The form can be
>> found here:
>> http://www.state.gov/m/irm/impact/126343.htm
>>  Here is an example of what other proprietary GIS software has done to
>> express its Section 508 compliance:
>>
>> http://www.esri.com/~/media/Files/Pdfs/legal/section508/vpats/vpat-arcgis-for-desktop-and-extensions-v101-(2).pdf
>>
>> I am willing to do a bit more research into this subject and start the
>> process of evaluating QGIS against the criteria listed in Section 508 if I
>> can get some buy-in from this community.
>>
>> I would need:
>> -A couple QGIS developers who would be willing to let me bounce questions
>> off of them as they come up.
>> -An assurance that my results would be reviewed by someone with authority
>> within the community (somebody who knows a lot about QGIS)
>> -Some indication that the results will actually be posted on the QGIS
>> website once green-lighted by somebody who knows more about the software
>> than I (Or else it would have been a waste of my time).
>>
>> I think that this could be a good opportunity to set an example for the
>> rest of the FOSS community on efforts that can be done to expand the user
>> base, beyond developing stellar products that is.
>>
>> Let me know what you all think
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> David Saeger
>> 305.984.5539
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Qgis-community-team mailing list
>> Qgis-community-team at lists.osgeo.org
>> http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/qgis-community-team
>>
>>
>


-- 
David Saeger
305.984.5539
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.osgeo.org/pipermail/qgis-community-team/attachments/20130305/b7897435/attachment.html>