Thread Subject: Re: Starting discussionson theAccessibilityAPIproposal

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: Jim Tobias
Date: Mon, Jan 08 2007 6:30 AM

Gregg wrote, regarding the Accessibility API and the assignment of
responsibilities:

"I don't think this is a market power question. It is an accessibility
question. It isn't about AT vendors having more power or IT vendors having
more power."

I salute the optimism, but it just doesn't reflect reality. There are,
already on the table,
complaints in one direction that AT companies can hold the ICT industry
hostage by refusing
to develop AT compatible with a new mainstream technology unless "suitably
motivated"; and in
the other direction that mainstream ICT companies, with clearly deeper
pockets and self-defined
rollout schedules, are not cooperating sufficiently with AT companies. If
that's not a debate
over power relationships, I don't know what is.

Isn't the point of a regulatorily required Accessibility API that, in the
best case, it resolves both
technological and market power issues by safe-harboring both parties? If
both AT and mainstream
ICT companies build to the A-API in good faith, access, while not absolutely
guaranteed, is maximized
in a feasible framework.

The problem that remains is the process for rolling out a new technology
whose parameters are not
yet dealt with within the A-API. We can have ideas about how to address
that problem, but they, by
definition, cannot be contained within a set of technological standards.
Inputs for success are
enough time, enough willing cooperation, and a venue in which both trust and
decisiveness exist.

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