Thread Subject: Re: Web Gaps - keyboard operation

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: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Thu, Jan 18 2007 10:10 AM

Gregg,

I have to say I like the existing language used in software and
operating systems as well, so I agree with Don.

For the benefit of the new readers that language is: (a) When
software is designed to run on a system that has a keyboard, products
functions shall be executable from a keyboard where the function itself
or the result of the function can be discerned textually.

I would like to understand your examples. Finger painting isn't
electronic & information technology (E&IT). Flying a helicopter
real-time isn't E&IT. Computer aided design (CAD) is E&IT. I could
design a system that would allow electronic finger painting using a
touch pad. I could design it such as there are text equivalents for all
the functions and provide it accessibly. I can design a system to fly a
helicopter via E&IT. I can make it accessible. I can make CAD functions
accessible. Please help me understand your example and thus your
arguments.

Finally, do you think the existing preamble is a good example? I
note the recommendation for a explanation. Perhaps in the refresh it
would be useful to have clearer direction to consult the preamble during
the interpretation of the technical standards. On that note, I would
like to specifically recommend that the preamble eliminate discussion in
the response justifying inaccessibility; software exists that allows
"selection of a paintbrush, picking a color, and drawing a design". The
difficulty is not what is important, that is a value judgment I don't
want to see continued in the refresh. (See Preamble discussion on
1194.21(a) via
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/preamble.htm#Subpart%20B for more
information).

Regards,


Norman B. Robinson
Section 508 Coordinator
IT Governance, US Postal Service
phone: 202.268.8246


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:39 PM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Web Gaps - keyboard operation


Hmmmm. It does sound a little arcane. However it is in fact the real
problem. We can create keyboard access except when the input required
is
analog in nature (not a discreet item) and has a time dependent aspect
to it
(so you can't just type in numbers to specify an analog number).

Finger painting is one example. Flying a helicopter in real time is
another.

CAD is not.

The problem with the existing text is that the problem isn't whether you
can
describe the task or output in text. It is whether the action actually
requires input that cannot be done from a keyboard. I have had people
think we were talking about voice control or natural language control by
typing into the keyboard. That was really confusing to them. I also
have
people saying that with enough words you can describe anything. And any
limit on words raises the question of why that number of words. So I
don't
think the current wording does either.


Maybe we go with the new words and a good description to explain?


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Barrett, Don
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 2:48 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Web Gaps - keyboard operation
>
> Sorry, but I am not sure "time-dependent analogue input"
> really gets at the issue. Actually, I think it avoids the
> issue by using an intimidating arcane phrase which no
> developer I have ever worked with will understand. And when
> they ask me what it means, I will have to use phrases which
> should have been in the standard in the first place. It
> confuses rather than clarifies.
>
> I missed the call, but what's wrong with the standard as it
> exists now.
>

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