Thread Subject: Re: Startingdiscussions ontheAccessibilityAPIproposal

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: Randy Marsden
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 2:55 PM

My comments were centered on the specific technical implementation of
interoperability between the IT and AT. I wasn¹t considering any sort of
regulatory or approval process.

Example: ITWidgetsRUs is creating a new piece of IT technology and wants to
be able to sell it to the Federal Government. They learn there¹s this thing
called Section 508 and that their widget must be accessible. So, they want
to make it so. But where do they start? The 508 requirements seem
daunting. They¹ve never even heard of AT, much less know who to contact,
what exists, what to do, etc.

There ought to be a place where they can go to get started, get connected,
sign NDA¹s, and begin the journey of making their widget accessible to all.
That¹s the process I¹m talking about. Still not sure how the Access Board
would be involved.. But having consumers involved is always a good idea ­
that often happens naturally as part of the product development process (at
least it should).

-Randy
>
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Reply-To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 14:52:55 -0600
> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Cc: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] [teitac-websoftware] Starting discussions
> ontheAccessibilityAPIproposal
>

> I think it needs to be at the Access-board level.
>
>
>
> You can't have industry deciding what qualifies for ?passing¹ the government
> requirements and have it have any validity if a suit is brought.
>
>
>
> Also consumers need to be at the table ­
>
>
>
> AND no matter what group of companies (IT and AT) you bring together, others
> will complain they were not represented.
>
>
>
> So AB is only one who could run such an operation I would think.
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randy
>> Marsden
>> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 11:44 AM
>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Starting discussions
>> ontheAccessibilityAPIproposal
>>
>> I think there should be a consultative process put in place. Whether or not
>> that has to involve the Access Board is not clear to me. I think it should
>> be done at the industry level. I thought the suggestion of a bugzilla-like
>> website was interesting. That could be part of it (although I don¹t think
>> that alone is enough). I believe the collaboration will happen naturally in
>> most cases, given a process, but if there is some problem encountered in a
>> specific interaction, perhaps a mediation procedure could be part of the
>> picture.
>>
>> -Randy
>>
>>
>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 11:01:14 -0500
>> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Starting discussions ontheAccessibility
>> APIproposal
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If I hear you correctly, Randy, you are proposing some sort of consultative
>>> process that would be mediated by, or at least
>>> would include participation by, regulators such as the Access Board. Is
>>> that correct? One of our recommendations
>>> might address this idea, as a way of providing continual refreshment.
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Randy Marsden (Home) [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>>> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 2:07 AM
>>> To: Gv@Trace. Edu; 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Starting discussions ontheAccessibility
>>> APIproposal
>>>
>>> Very well put, Gregg. You¹ve managed to put into words something I was
>>> feeling but wasn¹t sure how to express.
>>>
>>> My opinion is we should refresh Section 508 in such a way that it encourages
>>> the interaction even more between IT and AT vendors, and then at an industry
>>> level, set up a way for that to happen in a somewhat more formal way than we
>>> currently have.
>>>
>>> -Randy, ATIA
>>>
>>>
>>> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 00:51:57 -0600
>>> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Cc: "'Randy Marsden'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Subject: RE: [teitac-websoftware] Starting discussions on theAccessibility
>>> APIproposal
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Why value chain is good concept - but we need to be very careful about its
>>>> use in regulatory standards.
>>>>
>>>> I really like the accessibility value chain concept as a way to understand
>>>> this - and to point out the way things work together.
>>>>
>>>> But I worry about it in a discussion of how to structure our standards.
>>>> And
>>>> I don't think we should structure our standards around it. If we did then
>>>> we would only require that software companies "enable" there software to be
>>>> accessible - but they would have no responsibility to actually make sure
>>>> that there was AT that did work with their software and did make it
>>>> accessible. The result is that in fact it would be "meet accessibility
>>>> standard" but be unusable by anyone with a disability.
>>>>
>>>> Take the following example.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The Gregorian Software company creates a marvelous new media technology.
>>>> It
>>>> is new, different and extremely compelling web software for shopping and
>>>> transactions using a simulated person and live environment over narrow
>>>> bandwidth. They implement it with an accessibility API but no one uses
>>>> the
>>>> technology (of course) til its release in Sept 2007. At its announcement
>>>> it
>>>> is adopted by Amazon, a slew of banks, etc. AT vendors begin working with
>>>> it but it will be a year or more before they can get up to speed (sort of
>>>> like when dos went to windows) but this technology spreads at Internet
>>>> speed
>>>> because it is free downloadable plug in for most users.
>>>>
>>>> Suddenly these sites go black to AT users. But if we write out guidelines
>>>> such that the sites and the Gregorian software company can say their
>>>> software meets access standards, without actually requiring them to be
>>>> supported by real live AT that is out there - and available to users.
>>>>
>>>> In fact AT vendors will remember the days before we required software to
>>>> actually work with real AT. Software would come out with an
>>>> accessibility
>>>> API but AT vendors were not able get access to it and had very poor support
>>>> from software vendors even after release. Only when the software was
>>>> required to actually work with real AT did the vendors invite and support
>>>> and even court AT vendors in the same way they invited, supported and
>>>> courted other software and hardware vendors (for compatibility) when they
>>>> released something new.
>>>>
>>>> So I think the "accessibility value chain" is a very important concept.
>>>> But
>>>> I don't think we should base our standards on it.
>>>>
>>>> I think that something is accessible if it can be used by real people who
>>>> have disabilities, not just that it theoretically could be if only those
>>>> other people had done their job.
>>>>
>>>> Accessible - means that it can be used by people with disabilities.
>>>> That means it is either directly accessible. Or that it is accessible
>>>> using
>>>> the AT that the person with a disability has or can reasonably get (or in
>>>> the case of the government - for its employees - AT they are given). For
>>>> public websites, it would be the AT that the public at large has, can
>>>> reasonably get, or is given.
>>>>
>>>> Any other definition of accessibility defeats the purpose the legislators
>>>> laid out in creating 508. that is that people with disabilities could
>>>> actually use the E&IT in the government alongside everyone else - and when
>>>> it was purchased (not sometime in the future - if someone else does their
>>>> job).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> > -----Original Message-----
>>>>> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
>>>>> > Of Jim Tobias
>>>>> > Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 9:35 AM
>>>>> > To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
>>>>> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Starting discussions on
>>>>> > theAccessibility APIproposal
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Sean Hayes wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > "Firstly I agree that there is a problem that needs
>>>>> > adressing here, which is the equitable division of
>>>>> > reponsibility on accessibility between each entity involved
>>>>> > in delivering a software product. However, as we are all
>>>>> > aware, this is very difficult problem given the manner in
>>>>> > which modern software is produced, which in most significant
>>>>> > products involves cooperation across multiple organisations,
>>>>> > not only the software product developer, but OS vendors,
>>>>> > hardware vendors, AT vendors and middleware vendors among
>>>>> > others. In some cases standards or industry practice already
>>>>> > exists around these interfaces, and in some cases it doesn't."
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I would like to take this opportunity to develop a little
>>>>> > further the concept of an "accessibility value chain", which
>>>>> > Sean refers to indirectly. I believe that clarifying these
>>>>> > responsibilities is at the heart of "modern" accessibility,
>>>>> > because, as Sean notes, modern software requires cooperation
>>>>> > across multiple organizations, many of whom have only
>>>>> > indirect relationships.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I would like to posit that the nature of this technical
>>>>> > cooperation has three distinct elements or phases:
>>>>> > capability, implementation, and preservation.
>>>>> > By
>>>>> > "capability" I mean that the software component contains all
>>>>> > the features necessary for accessible use or development.
>>>>> > Examples are the ability to add a text description to an
>>>>> > image in a web development tool, and the ability to record
>>>>> > and play back Baudot files in a voice mail platform. By
>>>>> > "implementation" I mean that the capability has actually been
>>>>> > used by the next link in the chain. That is, the web
>>>>> > developer has actually added a text description to an image,
>>>>> > and the telecom manager has actually set up a voice mailbox
>>>>> > so a Baudot TTY user can receive messages. By "preservation"
>>>>> > I mean that
>>>>> > the next link in the chain is required not to interfere with
>>>>> > the accessibility feature already in place further up the
>>>>> > chain. For example, a digital cable system must not strip
>>>>> > the captioning information from a captioned video program
>>>>> > during transmission.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Most of the relationships in the chain are
>>>>> > capability-implementation ones, especially for web and
>>>>> > software. Thus the current 508 requires software to inherit
>>>>> > system display settings, use standard OS text presentation
>>>>> > techniques, etc.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > I think this formulation may clarify for us where we want to
>>>>> > go. For example, we have mentioned adding OS requirements.
>>>>> > That is, current 508 requires "downlink" software to honor OS
>>>>> > accessibility features, but it doesn't require OSs to have
>>>>> > those features. I think we may agree on adding such a
>>>>> > requirement, especially if we use today's common OSs as
>>>>> > models rather than dreaming up new features OSs don't have yet.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Another point that may meet more resistance, but seems clear
>>>>> > to me, is the utter inseperability of content from software
>>>>> > once we agree that there is an interlocking set of
>>>>> > relationships in the web/software arena. In the examples of
>>>>> > the web page and voice mail system I used above, how can the
>>>>> > tools be abstracted from the content? My thinking here is
>>>>> > not very well developed, so I look forward to a dialogue.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >

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