Thread Subject: Re: Combined HardwareSubcommitteeProposal
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.
Date: Tue, Dec 19 2006 12:00 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Debbie Cook: "Re: Combined HardwareSubcommitteeProposal"
- Previous message in thread: Debbie Cook: "Re: Combined HardwareSubcommittee Proposal"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Thank you, Randy. I'd just like to add that an E&IT product may be
designed to meet the Section 508 standards by:
1) Providing the accessibility features through the device itself, or
2) Making it compatible with AT
3) or both #1 and #2
A product may even meet many of the 508 criteria using both methods,
perhaps depending on the impairment being addressed. For example, the
manufacturer could decide to make the height of a product adjustable to
meet certain 508 requirements AND partner with an AT company to create a
more specialized solution for users who are blind or have dexterity
This is a good opportunity for both manufacturers and AT companies to play
a role. We should also encourage mainstream E&IT manufacturers to
incorporate accessibility features when it makes sense to do so.
The scenario presented in the previous e-mail is a difficult one, in which
it appears that neither the mainstream E&IT manufacturer nor the AT vendor
are motivated/able, for whatever reason, to make the product accessible.
Since Section 508 uses the "carrot" system to encourage accessible design,
I am not sure what the appropriate solution is (of course the assumption
is that this product is covered by 508 and not 255). Perhaps our
procurement experts can help us on this one.
Government Policy and Compliance Analyst
Government Marketing Division
Canon USA, Inc.
TEL: (703) 807-3158
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
"Debbie Cook" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
12/19/2006 12:51 PM
Please respond to
TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
"TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-general] [teitac-hardware]Combined
So, back to 508. Perhaps our definition should include something like
A device is considered Â³Self-ContainedÂ² if the original manufacturer has
provided a way for third-party software and hardware to be added to the
No. This doesn't work. There may be a way, but if no AT vendor has
the necessary AT, the product is NOT accessible. The developer says: Sure
you're welcome to make my product accessible. The AT developer says: Gee I
don't have te development resource to do that. So it's possible, not
happening, and not accessible. A product is only accessible if that
accessibility is reasonably available and exists.
A similar example occurs when the dveloper says "it worked with X AT" but
doesn't work with any of the AT users actually have. Still not really
accessible except in theory.
- Next message in Thread: Debbie Cook: "Re: Combined HardwareSubcommitteeProposal"
- Previous message in Thread: Debbie Cook: "Re: Combined HardwareSubcommittee Proposal"