Thread Subject: Re: Request for Agenda Items: TEITAC FebruaryMeetings

Note

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: Thu, Jan 04 2007 8:45 AM

Correct.


The "sufficient techniques" model combines testable success criteria or
provisions with techniques that are deemed to be sufficient at any point in
time to meet the provisions -- but are not required. Other approaches can
be used. It is quite powerful if administered properly. There is a dark
side however that needs to be understood. with technology advancing like
it is though, I believe it is the only way we can create standards that are

1) understandable
2) work across technologies
3) work today and even 4 years from now.


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Larry Goldberg
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 9:01 AM
> To: TEITAC Committee; Mike Paciello
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Request for Agenda Items:
> TEITAC February Meetings
>
> If you mean examples and demonstrations of how to comply,
> yes, our subcommittee has been suggesting the same -as long
> as those examples aren't taken as the only means of
> compliance. Such a presentation would be of value to all of us.
>
> - Larry
>
>
> Andi Snow-Weaver wrote:
>
> > Mike,
> >
> > In a number of the subcommittees, we have been discussing
> the idea of
> > supplementing the general requirements in the standard with
> sufficient
> > techniques that provide details on known methods to implement the
> > requirements. This is the model that WCAG 2.0 and other WAI
> standards
> > have adopted.
> >
> > If the other subcommittee co-chairs concur, perhaps we
> should allocate
> > some time on the agenda for a presentation on the WCAG model and
> > discussion of the feasibility of this for Section 508. If
> this model
> > is not feasible for Section 508, we need to know that now
> so that we
> > are working with the correct set of assumptions in the
> subcommittees.
> >
> > Either Gregg or I could do a short presentation on the WCAG
> 2.0 model.
> >
> > Andi
> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = Human Ability & Accessibility Center
> > (512) 838-9903, http://www.ibm.com/ableInternal Tie Line 678-9903,
> > http://w3.ibm.com/able
> >
> >
> >
> > "mike paciello"
> > <mpaciello@paciel
> > logroup.com>
> To
> > Sent by: "'TEITAC Committee'"
> > teitac-committee-
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> cc
> > ac.org
> >
> Subject
> > [teitac-committee]
> Request for
> > 01/02/2007 02:45 Agenda Items: TEITAC February
> > PM Meetings
> >
> >
> > Please respond
> > tompaciello@pacie
> > llogroup.com;
> > Please respond
> > toTEITAC
> > Committee
> > <teitac-committee
> > @list.teitac.org>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Hello Members of the TEITAC,
> >
> >
> > As promised, the co-chairs and the Access Board staff have been
> > working on a draft agenda for the upcoming Feb. 6-8, 2007 TEITAC
> > meeting. The following is a list of the topics that will be
> included
> > in the agenda. Most of these topics are based on recent
> recommendations from TEITAC members.
> >
> >
> > We are very interested in your suggestions for additional agenda
> > items, as well as any input you may have in reference to
> the current list of topics.
> > Note that we are requesting your advice and suggestions for
> speakers
> > and/or expert participants in a few key topic areas.
> >
> >
> > Could you review the list of topics and send us your
> > comments/suggestions by Thursday, January 4th. We appreciate that
> > this is short notice. We're up against a schedule to post
> this in the Federal Registry.
> >
> >
> > Remember to copy Jim Tobias, Tim Creagan, and Mike Paciello in your
> > replies.
> >
> >
> > Thanks very much for you help in advance.
> >
> >
> > Agenda Topics for the February 6-8, 2007 TEITAC Meeting:
> >
> >
> > 1. Cognition - Presentation on
> cognitive impairment and
> > its implications for design of Electronic
> and information
> > technology; Professor Clayton Lewis of
> the University of
> > Colorado and the Coleman Institute.
> >
> >
> > 2. Federal panel - short presentations by
> > representatives of federal agencies
> addressing specific
> > exceptions in §508 and how those are
> handled/interpreted
> > by the agency.
> >
> >
> > 3. Editorial - A directed discussion about the anticipated work
> > product of this committee is to be produced by the TEITAC:
> What form will it take?
> > What will it contain? How will this work be completed? What is the
> > timeline for completing the work? How will it be reviewed
> internally? A
> > draft model will be provided for discussion.
> >
> >
> > 4. Subcommittee reports - Subcommittees will be expected
> to address
> > the full committee on the following aspects of their work to date:
> >
> >
> > a. Do you feel like you¹ve achieved an
> > understanding of the current § 508 standards and the §255
> guidelines
> > as to how they are/are not working in today¹s
> > federal/business/consumer environment?
> >
> >
> > b. Do you have any recommended changes for
> > the committee to consider?
> >
> >
> > c. Are there any missing pieces of
> > information that you need? Do you need input from a specialist or
> > expert on a particular area, as it relates to the current standards
> > and guidelines and how they are / are not working?
> >
> >
> > d. How is your subcommittee functioning,
> > administratively? Is someone editing your Wiki? Is everyone on the
> > subcommittee connected to the work of the subcommittee, and
> are they
> > participating?
> >
> >
> > e. Do you have a list of tasks you
> need to do
> > in the next 3 months?
> >
> >
> > f. Do you have an understanding of how you
> > are going to accomplish your work?
> >
> >
> > g. Is there anything you need,
> either from the
> > Access Board or someone else that will help you complete your work?
> >
> >
> > 5. Breakout sessions of the subcommittees: Time will be
> scheduled on
> > the agenda for subcommittees to meet face to face.
> > a. Which subcommittees want to meet? Which subcommittees
> should meet at
> > the same time (so as to avoid membership overlap)?
> > b. Infrastructure. Assuming that we can get captioned
> teleconference
> > calls into the subcommittee meeting rooms, are there any other
> > accommodations we should consider?
> > 6. Plenary Session on Themes: plenary session to address
> the themes
> > of the committee. Are the themes being addressed? Are the
> > subcommittees considering the themes during their discussions?
> > Cognitive Disability
> > Emerging Products and Components
> > External Standards by Reference
> > Harmonization
> > Maintaining and Updating the Standards
> > Testability
> > Economic Impact
> > Interoperability with AT
> > Usability of the Standards
> > 7. Low Vision: We are looking for a presentation on modern ICT
> > products and low vision. The purpose would be to explain in both
> > clinical and demographic terms the interaction of the
> principal forms
> > of low vision with typical components and characteristics of common
> > ICT products. For example, how does reflective glare affect
> the accessibility for users with glaucoma.
> > If you have recommendations for speakers, please let us
> know in your
> > reply to this e-mail.
> >
> > Thanks again for your time and consideration,
> >
> > Tim Creagan
> > Jim Tobias
> > Mike Paciello
> >
>




begin 666 ATT00003.txt
M7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?7U]?
M7U-"G1E:71A8RUC;VUM:71T964@;6%I;&EN9R!L:7-T#0IT96ET86,M8V]M
M;6ET=&5E0&QI<W0N=&5I=&%C+F]R9PT*:'1T<#HO+VQI<W0N=&5I=&%C+F]R
E9R]M86EL;6%N+VQI<W1I;F9O+W1E:71A8RUC;VUM:71T964-"@``
`
end

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University