Thread Subject: Re: General Issues: Browser Requirements

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: Peter Korn
Date: Wed, Jan 10 2007 6:55 PM

Hi Sean,

We need to look at this ISO provision in the context of the entire
document - which alas is not available to all of this group. Section
508's 1194.5 Equivalent Facilitation allows me to bypass specific
technical standards in 1194.21, so long as a achieve a result that
satisfies 1194.31 functional performance (and if I have AT on my
'platform' that meets (a) - (f) of 1194.31, I'd say I've done so).

This needs more study.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> It seems to me it is the reponsibility of the platform to live up to the requirements, whether it chooses to do so by defering to the underlying platform, or by implementing it itself might seem to be an implementation decision.
>
> Having said that however since such a platform is also client software, the ISO provision 8.6.3 Use standard accessibility services states "Software that provides user interface elements shall use the accessibility services provided by the system to cooperate with assistive technologies".
>
> Which would (unless I am reading it wrongly) tend to suggest that a JavaAT, or Firevox approach would be incorrect if it interfaced directly with AT and did not in turn use the underlying platform capability to do so?
>
> Sean Hayes
> Standards and Policy Team
> Accessible Technology Group
> Microsoft
> Phone:
> mob +44 7977 455002
> office +44 117 9719730
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn
> Sent: 10 January 2007 16:35
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] General Issues: Browser Requirements
>
> Hi Sean,
>
>
>> Browsers, Players, and Virtual machines are all special cases of platform software like the OS and probably should be subject to similar rules. I'd be unhappy to single out just browsers (assuming we could even adequately define browser).
>>
>>
>
> I agree with this completely. Browsers, Flash, Java runtime - they are
> all examples of a platform, and accessibility requirements for
> "platforms" should apply to them. The only distinction I would make is
> whether the AT resides at that platform layer or not. Most AT resides
> at the OS "platform" (though there has been work on Java AT [IBM] and
> Browser AT [variety of folks]). When the AT resides at a different
> platform, then additional work is needed - e.g. when it is JAWS on
> Windows, the browser has to do work to convey HTML information out to
> Windows; when it is the Firevox speech extension to Firefox, the
> information need not be conveyed out to Windows because the AT resides
> inside the browser platform.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
>> Sean Hayes
>> Standards and Policy Team
>> Accessible Technology Group
>> Microsoft
>> Phone:
>> mob +44 7977 455002
>> office +44 117 9719730
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi Snow-Weaver
>> Sent: 09 January 2007 22:13
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] General Issues: Browser Requirements
>>
>>
>> Some have suggested that we might want to impose some requirements on
>> browser. For example, if browsers provided more keyboard support, ATs
>> wouldn't have to and users who don't use AT would benefit.
>>
>> Thoughts on this topic?
>>
>> Andi
>>
>>

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