Thread Subject: Re: "closedsoftware"
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: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Wed, Dec 27 2006 12:35 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC: "Re: "closedsoftware""
- Previous message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: "closedsoftware""
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Sorry to chime in so late on this, but there should never be a
suggestion that anyone give up on federal sales!
There are many products and services that have no designed in
accessibility. That works out into products that are in actually fully
accessible because they developed using standard toolkits and just
didn't test for accessibility or products that, of course, aren't
accessible. But if there is a business need for the product, we are
going to procure it, if there is no other product.
We will choose the most accessible if more than one meets our business
needs, but the right mindset in this is critical! Vendors need to
_compete_ not quit!
Norman B. Robinson
Section 508 Coordinator
IT Governance, US Postal Service
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 4:32 PM
To: 'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee';
'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Cc: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] [teitac-closed]
I was quoting Gregg's comments about what to include or exclude
in any "closed" determination. I *thought* I was speaking very much in
favor of AT innovation, but maybe I wasn't clear. Here's what I mean.
Let's look at 3 cases for an "appliance"-type product:
1. has native accessibility (built-in accessibility features)
2. has no native accessibility, but there is AT
3. has no native accessibility, and no current AT
The goal is to move more products into categories #1 and #2.
Not to eliminate #2, but to expand it. More consumer/procurer choice.
A mainstream company with a #3 product has 3 options:
a. give up on federal sales
b. add native accessibility
c. partner with or otherwise encourage an AT company to develop
an AT solution for the product
- Next message in Thread: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC: "Re: "closedsoftware""
- Previous message in Thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: "closedsoftware""