Thread Subject: Re: Group B: 22(a) text equivalents

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: David Poehlman
Date: Fri, Nov 24 2006 2:35 PM

I see no need for improvement. I didn't see all the thread though so
should go and look at it.

On Nov 24, 2006, at 12:33 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

Hi David,

That is what the original language was attempting.

Turing Exception:

"If the purpose of non-text content is to confirm that content is being
operated by a person rather than a computer, then different forms are
provided to accommodate multiple different disabilities."

We then provide different combinations that are considered sufficient to
meet the requirement.

Got any suggested improvements?




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of David Poehlman
> Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 7:29 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group B: 22(a) text equivalents
>
> I'm not sure I follow this entirely, but I do agree that an
> audio only cappchia would have to be augmented visually. I'd
> like to propose that we come up with a way to address this at
> the ground level. In other words,, "in cases where it is
> deemed necessary to verify that a human is at the controlls,
> provide a mechanism or mechanisms which meet all of the following:
> ..." here we list the requirements. In this way, nothing has
> to be adapted as it is worked in at the ground level. The
> person using the
> system would then have several choices of mechanism to pick from.
> They'd have the image one if it is chosen, they'd have the
> audio if prefered and they've have an assisted one and
> whatever other ones there are.
>
> Thoughtss?
> On Nov 22, 2006, at 8:54 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>
> Some CAPTCHAs are audio - and you need to have a visual
> alternative for those.
>
> Then they have logic - which doesn't work for other people.
>
> What we do with WCAG is we use this general requirement --
> then we list a
> number of very specific solutions that are "sufficient". The one you
> mention would be listed as "sufficient" but we didn't want to
> limit it to that or require that specific solution - or omit
> the requirement to have alternatives to other types.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of David
>> Poehlman
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 4:22 PM
>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group B: 22(a) text equivalents
>>
>> I agree with this and would ad that we spell out the functional
>> requirements of alternatives.
>>
>> On Nov 22, 2006, at 5:15 PM, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
>>
>> I think I might have started the whole CAPTCHA discussion
> earlier, so
>> I'll try and prepare some language that is more specific and less
>> generalized. I think basically we ant to say, "images used for
>> CAPTCHA,
>> must not be the only means available". This is for now a web-based
>> phenomena.
>>
>>
>>
>> Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of David
>> Poehlman
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 5:11 PM
>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Group B: 22(a) text equivalents
>>
>> I don't understand either one.
>>
>> On Nov 22, 2006, at 3:44 PM, Sailesh Panchang wrote:
>>
>> Don wrote:
>>> " * Turing Exception: If the purpose of non-text content is to
>>> confirm that content is being operated by a person rather than a
>>> computer, then different forms are provided to accommodate
> multiple
>>> different disabilities."
>>
>>> Can this provision be either explained better or left out?
>>> I have no idea what it means, and I suspect most people
>> reading it at
>>> face value won't either.
>>
>> Here is new wording for you to consider:
>> "In cases where the result of user's interaction with
> certain non-text
>> element within Web content is used to confirm whether a
> real person or
>> a computer program is operating the content, the text
> alternative for
>> the non text element will accommodate multiple different
>> disabilities."
>> Sailesh Panchang
>> Senior Accessibility Engineer
>> Deque Systems Inc. (www.deque.com)
>> 11130 Sunrise Valley Drive, Suite #140, Reston VA 20191
>> Phone: 703-225-0380 (ext 105)
>> E-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>
>>

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University