Thread Subject: Re: Startingdiscussionson theAccessibility APIproposal
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: Jonathan Avila
Date: Tue, Jan 09 2007 7:55 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Lazzaro, Joe (ITD): "Re: Startingdiscussionson theAccessibility APIproposal"
- Previous message in thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: Startingdiscussionson theAccessibility APIproposal"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
In regards to this API, I think the term may be confusing and turn people
away from it. I believe what you are really talking about is an API
specification or an interface and not an implemented API. However even
this imply specific calling conventions. While I think this might be good I
don't see all of private sector embracing this because it could be to
restrictive. I also have concerned about the availability of such as
interface. For example, take web pages. The user agent would have to
follow this API in order to expose web page content to assistive technology.
AT vendors and web page authors have no control over when companies like
Microsoft release new versions of IE and should not be held hostage when
their application runs on this type of platform. As long as section 508 has
an equivalent facilitation clause companies will continue to use that
instead of this API. In addition, I believe some in the public sector will
worry about this API squashing innovation.
Don't get me wrong, I think an defined interface such as this could really
promote access; I'm just concerned about the backlash something like this
- Next message in Thread: Lazzaro, Joe (ITD): "Re: Startingdiscussionson theAccessibility APIproposal"
- Previous message in Thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: Startingdiscussionson theAccessibility APIproposal"