Thread Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

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: mike paciello
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 2:10 PM

I'm confirming that request. Randy sent it in last week.

-Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jessica M.
Brodey
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 4:01 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

ATIA has put in a request to do just such a presentation.

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Laura Ruby
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 3:36 PM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

I would prefer to see a more general presentation by ATIA on how AT/IT work
together and the current state of the AT world. I don't think it's
appropriate to have a presentation on specific APIs, platforms and
architectures to the general TEITAC. The majority of us do not write code.

Laura Ruby
Director of Global Policy and Standards
Microsoft Accessible Technology Group
425-705-7098
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 11:56 AM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Hi Mary, Andrew, Andi,

I would be happy to take part in making such a presentation on accessibility
architectures, and the way AT interoperates with them on multiple platforms.
Given the Software & Web subcommittee's discussions

around Accessibility APIs, I think this could be a very useful and
informative session.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> I agree that this presentation would be very useful to move the agenda

> forward.
>
> Mary Frances Laughton
> Industry Canada
> --------------------------
> Mary Frances Laughton
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> To: TEITAC Committee
> Sent: Thu Jan 04 14:30:48 2007
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items
>
> I'd like to second this -- there is a significant need for the
committee
> to see a presentation that talks about current accessibility
> architectures (Windows/Mac/Linux/WAI-ARIA) and how AT works with
these.
> I'm sure that representatives for the different OS's could work
together
> to present a talk that would help the committee deal with some
important
> decisions. I'd say that we should budget 60-90 minutes for this.
>
> AWK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
> Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 2:21 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items
>
>
> Seems like the attached thread indicates that we might not all be on
the
> same page with regard to the goal of the 508 and 255 standards. Is
this
> something that we should spend some time wrestling with at the
February
> TEITAC? Can the Access Board provided some direction here?
>
> Andi
>
> ----- Forwarded by Andi Snow-Weaver/Austin/IBM on 01/04/2007 01:14 PM
> -----
>
>
> "Randy Marsden
>
> (Home)"
>
> <randym@madentec.
> To
> com> TEITAC self contained/closed
>
> Sent by: products subcommittee
>
> teitac-websoftwar
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >,
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = "'TEITAC Web/Software
>
> itac.org Subcommittee'"
>
>
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >
>
> 12/22/2006 10:51
> cc
> AM "'TEITAC General Interface
>
> Accessibility Subcommittee'"
>
>
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> Please respond
> Subject
> toTEITAC Re: [teitac-websoftware]
>
> Web/Software [teitac-closed] "closed
> software"
> Subcommittee
>
> <teitac-websoftwa
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> g>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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 - 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 "or" in the functional performance
> criteria - perhaps something we should look at). I think
> the
> best situation is when both exist."constrained by the
> current
> crop of AT". AT is evolving even as IT is. I think what
> has
> been suggested for wording is something along the lines of
> "works with readily available AT". That doesn't constrain
> the
> regs to the current crop of AT - it leaves room for
whatever
> AT
> is developed in the future that becomes readily
> available.-Randy MarsdenATIA
>
>
>
>

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