Thread Subject: Re: Starting discussionson theAccessibilityAPIproposal
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: Jessica M. Brodey
Date: Mon, Jan 08 2007 9:00 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Starting discussionson theAccessibilityAPIproposal"
- Previous message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Starting discussionson theAccessibilityAPIproposal"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
I do agree with Jim that this is, to some extent, about power relationships.
In an ideal world, an Accessibility API can help to minimize that struggle,
but I'm not sure that I would agree with Jim's optimism . . . I think,
perhaps, I am a bit more cynical. I am concerned about the scenario of
"what happens when the Accessibility API does not meet the expectations" -
what can we include in 508 to recognize that an Accessibility API is not the
cure all and does not equate with access. I am quite concerned about using
the Accessibility API as a proxy for actual compatibility . . . unlike some
of the other measures in 508, an end result of actual compatibility is not
necessarily guaranteed, unless we make sure it is written that way.
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 8:28 AM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware]Starting discussionson
Gregg wrote, regarding the Accessibility API and the assignment of
"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
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
- Next message in Thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Starting discussionson theAccessibilityAPIproposal"
- Previous message in Thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Starting discussionson theAccessibilityAPIproposal"