[
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTIS-1151?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin...
]
Paul Leacu commented on JBTIS-1151:
-----------------------------------
** Track email thread:
Rick Wagner
4:33 PM (18 hours ago)
to devtools-progr., Wagner
Hello DevTools-Program,
CEE has fielded a handful of cases from US government customers that have an interest in
product accessibility. The requests usually come in the form of a request for a
'VPAT', which is a document that explains our level of compliance with regulation
called 'section 508' [1].
Red Hat offers a VPAT for EAP, but little else. On behalf of our government customers,
we'd like to ask if it's possible to provide something for IDE evaluators who ask
about a VPAT for DevStudio. (We have had cases.)
There's an RFE open for JBTSIS, it's at [2]. Perhaps this is better provided as
an RFE for DevStudio, that's easily arranged if it's deemed proper.
Please consider, discuss further as needed. It seems possible that providing a VPAT might
lend some advantages in dealing with government customers (and will probably lead to a
better product, anyway.)
Thanks,
Rick
[1]
https://www.section508.gov/content/sell/vpat
[2]
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTIS-1151
Ronald Pacheco <rpacheco(a)redhat.com>
4:45 PM (18 hours ago)
to Rick, devtools-progr., Wagner
On Tue, Aug 1, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Rick Wagner <rwagner(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hello DevTools-Program,
CEE has fielded a handful of cases from US government customers that have an interest in
product accessibility. The requests usually come in the form of a request for a
'VPAT', which is a document that explains our level of compliance with regulation
called 'section 508' [1].
Red Hat offers a VPAT for EAP, but little else.
Not really. I did the RHEL 7 one a few months ago, Red hat Storage did theirs recently,
and OpenStack is creating theirs. Satellie has theirs, too.
Please see
https://access.redhat.com/articles/2918071#section-508-8
On behalf of our government customers, we'd like to ask if it's possible to
provide something for IDE evaluators who ask about a VPAT for DevStudio. (We have had
cases.)
There's an RFE open for JBTSIS, it's at [2]. Perhaps this is better provided as
an RFE for DevStudio, that's easily arranged if it's deemed proper.
Please consider, discuss further as needed. It seems possible that providing a VPAT might
lend some advantages in dealing with government customers (and will probably lead to a
better product, anyway.)
Thanks,
Rick
[1]
https://www.section508.gov/content/sell/vpat
[2]
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTIS-1151
--
RON PACHECO
DIRECTOR, PRODUCT MANAGEMENT, PLATFORMS BU
Red Hat
rpacheco(a)redhat.com T: 978-392-3912
TRIED. TESTED. TRUSTED.
@redhatnews Red Hat Red Hat
Bob Davis
5:17 PM (17 hours ago)
to Rick, devtools-progr., Wagner
Hey Rick -
Should this be something we consider for everything that DevTools does that has a GUI?
On its face, it seems like something we should just do, unless it's super time
consuming or difficult.
Bob
Rick Wagner
8:18 AM (2 hours ago)
to Bob, devtools-progr., Wagner
Hi Bob and All,
I think it is something we should consider for wider use. (As Ron pointed out, other RH
products are doing it.)
It seems like it might help with government sales (perhaps more so in the future, hard to
judge), and it just seems like a good thing to do.
Probably we should evaluate it to see what kind of effort is required. GSS considers this
a 'nice to have', so if our findings indicate it's not practical, we'll be
happy with the status quo. But if we can add it without much trouble, it seems like there
are upsides.
My .02,
Rick
Jean-Francois Maury
8:36 AM (2 hours ago)
to Rick, Wagner, devtools-progr.
Looked at the Microsoft reports for VS and they are very detailed so we need an
accessibility expert there
Jeff
Rich Sharples <rsharple(a)redhat.com>
8:47 AM (2 hours ago)
to Bob, Rick, devtools-progr., Wagner
Quite simply - if you want to be considered for any us gov agencies - federal or state -
you will need to comply with 508 to some degree. A VPAT is the lowest acceptable bar.
For MW products we still contract out the evaluation - it's around $25k per product
major
Release (excluding any required remediation work). At some point it may be more cost
effective to do this work ourselves - we've discussed that numerous times over the
years.
Bob Davis
9:25 AM (1 hour ago)
to Rich, devtools-progr., Wagner, Rick
So this is a significant LOE as compared to say, the EARF?
I'd be interested in seeing what the possible return on that investment would be - how
would having a VPAT for DevStudio drive sales in MW or RHEL? What are these gov users
using now, and is that "workaround" working for them? Would they even use
DevStudio if it were an option?
Rich Sharples <rsharple(a)redhat.com>
9:34 AM (1 hour ago)
to Bob, devtools-progr., Wagner, Rick
On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Bob Davis <bodavis(a)redhat.com> wrote:
So this is a significant LOE as compared to say, the EARF?
I'd be interested in seeing what the possible return on that investment would be - how
would having a VPAT for DevStudio drive sales in MW or RHEL? What are these gov users
using now, and is that "workaround" working for them? Would they even use
DevStudio if it were an option?
Good questions for our very large NA public sector team - you may want to start with Jim
Tyrell.
Ronald Pacheco <rpacheco(a)redhat.com>
9:36 AM (1 hour ago)
to Rick, Wagner, devtools-progr.
The reason the other teams have provided updates is because customers in the public sector
(which also includes education, local governments, defense, etc.) added the VPAT
declaration as a bid requirement. From my perspective, it helps to provide clarity on
what we deliver and support as well as what we don't.
HTH
Ron
Ronald Pacheco <rpacheco(a)redhat.com>
9:38 AM (1 hour ago)
to Rick, Wagner, devtools-progr.
FWIW, it was not very heavy lifting. In fact, even a PM can do the bulk of the work in
less than 1 week. ;-)
Paul Leacu <pleacu(a)redhat.com>
9:50 AM (1 hour ago)
to Catherine, Andrej, Ronald, Rick, Wagner, devtools-progr.
Hey - ccing Catherine Robson as this is really a UX discussion
Just for comparison - here's the OpenShift 3.1 VPAT:
https://www.redhat.com/en/files/resources/cl-openshift-3-vpat.pdf
and here's an older EAP VPAT provided by an outside vendor:
https://www.redhat.com/en/files/resources/en-rhjb-section-508-vpat-jboss-...
Given just Devstudio (+ Integration Stack layered tooling for SOA, DataVirt and B*MS) -
this appears to be a pretty daunting task. To be able to accurately address each
"Section 1194" criteria would require QE and engineering participation. Then
there's the rest of DevTools. I guess the confusing part is exactly how accurately do
they need these criteria answered?
--paull
Ronald Pacheco
9:54 AM (1 hour ago)
to me, Catherine, Andrej, Rick, Wagner, devtools-progr.
If it helps, here's the draft I used
https://docs.google.com/a/redhat.com/document/d/1bLF8ryUfURbf8AT3qb0-FcKj...
Section 508 - VPAT Compatibility
--------------------------------
Key: JBTIS-1151
URL:
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBTIS-1151
Project: JBoss Tools Integration Stack
Issue Type: Feature Request
Components: distribution
Affects Versions: 10.3.0.GA
Environment:
Reporter: Wagner Queiroz
Assignee: Paul Leacu
Priority: Minor
Provide Section 508 - VPAT compliance Integration Stack product if possible in a next GA
release.
Ref:
https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-28860
Some useful info before going to a formal evaluation:
https://mojo.redhat.com/docs/DOC-175787
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.2.3#72005)