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 9:10 AM

I agree with your concerns completely, Jessica. That's why
any A-API approach must include a consultative and evolutionary
process. We simply cannot wait 5 years between waltzes.

******
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1 732.441.0831 voice/tty
skype jimtobias
+1 908.907.2387 mobile

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jessica M. Brodey [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 10:54 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware]Starting discussionson
> theAccessibilityAPIproposal
>
> 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.
>
> Jessica Brodey
>
> -----Original Message-----
> 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
> theAccessibilityAPIproposal
>
> 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