Thread Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items
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: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 2:15 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Andi Snow-Weaver: "Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items"
- Previous message in thread: mike paciello: "Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
The context you describe is what I envision being helpful broadly, so
I'm glad that you agree. I'm not envisioning a review of the proposal
under discussion in web/software at all. The presentation I'm
envisioning also touches on general interface and closed product
decisioning, and will help establish a common understanding that is
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 3:49 PM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items
Peter and Andrew,
A presenation on how AT interoperates with IT could be very helpful to
the TEITAC as long as it is in the context of coming to consensus on the
goals of the standards. But it should be at a very general level. For
example, in a desktop environment, an operating system has
responsibility x, y, z, an application has responsibility a, b, and c,
and an AT has responsibility 1, 2, 3, etc. I don't think that a
presentation on the different operating system architectures is right
for the TEITAC, lest the discussion degrade into a debate over which one
With regard to the API proposal, it is premature to discuss this at the
TEITAC since the Web and Software subcommittee is not in agreement on it
yet. It is inappropriate for subcommittee proposals to be discussed at
the TEITAC until the subcommittee is ready to do that. Curtis and I will
present the work of the subcommittee, as approved by the subcommittee.
If the API proposal has advanced sufficiently by the time of the
February TEITAC meeting, we will include it in our report and may, in
fact, ask you and Andrew to present the API proposal as part of the
report. Until the subcommittee approves, however, Curtis and I do not
support the API proposal being included on the agenda.
Sent by: TEITAC Committee
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder:
01/04/2007 01:55 Request for Agenda Items
Hi Mary, Andrew, Andi,
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
- Next message in Thread: Andi Snow-Weaver: "Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items"
- Previous message in Thread: mike paciello: "Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items"