Thread Subject: Re: Proposal 21(b) Focus

From: Lybarger, Barbara (MOD)
Date: Mon, Nov 27 2006 1:30 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Peter Korn: "Re: Proposal 21(b) Focus"
• Previous message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Proposal 21(b) Focus"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

In the Assistive Technology definition, how about replacing "that
increases accessibility for an individual" with "and that enables an
individual with a disability to more independently interact with one or
more specific aspects of information technology."

It's more informative,
Barbara E. Lybarger, General Counsel
Massachusetts Office on Disability
One Ashburton Place, #1305
Boston, MA 02108
[617] 727-7440
[800] 322-2020
[617] 727-0965 FAX


_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 10:44 AM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Cc: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] [teitac-websoftware] Proposal 21(b) Focus


The first 2 definitions are good, and I think we should add them to the
list of defined terms under Subpart A.

The third is more problematic:
-- there already are several definitions of AT
-- it may require a definition for "system"
-- it refers to "an individual", not specifying whether that person has
a disability. Also, does it really mean "any indvidual"?
-- it perpetuates the lack of a suitable definition of "accessibility"



***********
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
skype jimtobias
www.inclusive.com





_____

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 10:15 AM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Proposal 21(b) Focus



In the HFES and ISO work we found that there is no clear
delineation between software and platform anymore.



So we have adopted the following. (this is from HFES doc)





Category

Description

Platform software
(the operating system and associated layers, and toolkits)

Operating system, drivers and associated software layers.

Includes Windowing Systems, libraries and associated toolkits that
provide or affect the user interface of other software (e.g. GNOME, KDE,
Java runtime, Visual Basic, applications executing scripts or hosting
embedded objects, etc.)

NOTE: If a software program uses its own routine to provide, override,
or replace OS driver functions then the application would need to
conform to related Platform Software provisions.



Application software
(which run on and make use of services provided by platform software)



Software not considered as part of the operating system or its immediate
layers. This includes "desktop" software bundled with an operating
system, personal productivity applications, development tools, Web
browsers, and other non-OS software.

Assistive Technology

Hardware or software that is added to or incorporated within a system
that increases accessibility for an individual. Some portions may
function as platform software while other portions may function as
application software and would be covered above. Guidelines for the
design of assistive technology in general are outside the scope of this
document.







Gregg

-- ------------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.







> -----Original Message-----

> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf

> Of Hoffman, Allen

> Sent: Monday, November 27, 2006 7:03 AM

> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee

> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Proposal 21(b) Focus

>

> Peter Korn wrote:

> "I wonder if it helps frame the issue by looking at a web

> browser as a "platform"."

>

> In W3C this is termed a user-agent, and there are user-agent

> accessibility guidelines completed. I think a clear

> demarcation of the lines between what the web-coding

> provides, and the accessibility features of the user-agent is

> important, as long as we are careful not to say, the coding

> doesn't need to do such and such because a browser can

> sometimes not pass it thru correctly. Maybe we should

> assemble the "stack" here to work from.

>

> So, top down, from the end-user to the other end we might
have:

>

> assistive technology

> document object model/OS API(s)

> user-agent

> content stream of encoded information

> potential "just in time interpreter"

> Operating system w/ accessibility API(s)

>

> So should we consider what user-agent items should be
developed that

> *must* be available to ensure some accessibility level based

> upon the other layers? If so, would this fall possibly in to

> a sub-portion of software/OS?

>

> For example a framework might be something like:

>

> When software is used to interpret and present (insert

> standards for web and other associated content streams),

> (insert requirement beyond other software requirements).

>

>

>

> Allen Hoffman

> Department of Homeland Security

> Office on Accessible Systems & Technology

>

>

• Next message in Thread: Peter Korn: "Re: Proposal 21(b) Focus"
• Previous message in Thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Proposal 21(b) Focus"