Thread Subject: Re: Startingdiscussionson theAccessibility APIproposal

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: Jessica M. Brodey
Date: Tue, Jan 09 2007 10:05 AM

Allen Hoffman said: "I don't think we can say industry *must* use a
specific API, but maybe we can say that OS(s) have a requirement to include
such an API and make it available for use, and then require AT vendors to as
possible make use of available APIs)."

This is an interesting approach, and one that might be workable. We do,
however, have to be careful about specifying that ALL AT vendors must make
use of available APIs at all times - there are instances (particularly when
an API is inadequate to accomplish the end result, or as technology advances
and the APIs have not yet evolved to meet the needs) when the API will not
be usable for an AT vendor because of an end they are trying to accomplish.
We need to be careful that an AT vendor is not forced to use an API in a
circumstance that may not be adequate or appropriate - it should be
encouraged and a first choice to the extent it will be beneficial and
promote innovation, but there are times when that may not be the case.
Remember - AT is often the failsafe when mainstream or built-in access is
insufficient - thinking out of the box, and unconventional methods are often
necessary to reach the end result of actual access.

Jessica

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