Thread Subject: Re: "closed software"
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: Randy Marsden (Home)
Date: Fri, Dec 22 2006 9:55 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: "closed software""
- Previous message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: "closed software""
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
>> Jim Tobias wrote:
>> What does "... works with AT" mean -- only current AT? We should not be
>> constrained by the current crop of AT. The goal of the regs is to stimulate
>> native accessibility in products that don't have it right now, and to
>> stimulate AT where native accessibility is not feasible or reasonable.
>> I find this language disturbing. My impression was the goal of the regs was
>> to make mainstream technology more accessible to people with disabilities Â
>> not necessarily to explicitly drive built-in accessibility. Many people with
>> disabilities prefer to use their own AT, even when a product has its own
>> built-in accessibility. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor should be.
>> (Although the current wording of 508 tends to separate them by using the word
>> Â³orÂ² in the functional performance criteria Â perhaps something we should
>> look at). I think the best situation is when both exist.
>> Â³constrained by the current crop of ATÂ². AT is evolving even as IT is. I
>> think what has been suggested for wording is something along the lines of
>> Â³works with readily available ATÂ². That doesnÂ¹t constrain the regs to the
>> current crop of AT Â it leaves room for whatever AT is developed in the
>> future that becomes readily available.
>> -Randy Marsden