Thread Subject: Re: "Supported by AT"
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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 11:55 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: None
- Previous message in thread: None
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
This is a very important and tricky topic. We have two
situations/choices -- neither of which is tolerable. (and a third
which fails 508 and standards)..
1) we don't allow any technology to be used that isn't supported by the
AT being used by everyone (including people with very old AT)
a. this isn't tolerable because it holds back technology progress
2) we allow technology to be used even if only supported by the latest
most expensive AT
a. this is OK for government employees if the government commits to
providing this. In fact is should be just fine.
b. This isn't tolerable for public information. It restricts public
information to only those who are rich or who have a company (job) to pay
for it for them. It could leave 1/3 or more without access.
3) we allow technology to be used even if only supported by Future AT
a. not being accessible except for AT that doesn't exist - doesn't
make the product accessible to people with disabilities. So it fails the
performance criteria of the standards and the intent and whole reason for
Since 1 and 2 are both not logical - and #3 fails 508 intent and wording
- we need to find a way to bring up the bottom. However, that is outside
of our guidelines process. So what we need to do is to write the guidelines
so that brining the bottom up yields instant reward to all. And that not
we don't write them so that we can just walk away from those at the bottom
and still 'conform'. And then work outside of this process to address the
problem - rather than write things so that we can ignore it.
Lots to think about.
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
- Next message in Thread: None
- Previous message in Thread: None