Thread Subject: Re: Starting discussionsontheAccessibilityAPIproposal

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: Lybarger, Barbara (MOD)
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 4:35 PM

What your missing is that the government has a legitimate interest in
the safe, cheap and reliable access to the share resource of knowledge
that technology affords. If a reasonable means is chosen to address
that legitimate interest, then its benefit a particular industry is
incidental. Also the main role Congress gave to the Access Board is
regulatory. Educational is a necessary but lesser function.

Barbara Lybarger


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 6:14 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Cc: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC General
Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Web/Software
Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Starting discussions
ontheAccessibilityAPIproposal



But is insuring that AT companies can be competitive truly a government
function? Isn't our role one more of education - we let vendors know
how requirements and companies decide whether they have a product or
service they want to offer?

I don't see how we can create a government entity that has this role,
unless there is something I've missed.





"Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

01/04/2007 03:52 PM
Please respond to
"TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To
"'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
cc
"'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject
Re: [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 'passing' 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 don't 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. You've managed to put into words something I was
feeling but wasn't 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