Thread Subject: Re: "closedsoftware"
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: David Poehlman
Date: Sat, Jan 20 2007 4:50 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: "closedsoftware""
- Previous message in thread: Peter Korn: "Re: "closedsoftware""
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
almost is only good in horse shoes.
On Jan 10, 2007, at 8:58 AM, Andi Snow-Weaver wrote:
To which Rex replied:
> I didn't really ask this. I proposed that there were levels of
accessibility, just like you proposed different speeds of "door
This is a very real situation and is exactly one of the general issues
brought up in the Web and Software subcommittee which we will be
today. It happens all the time and not just for the newer APIs or
non-Windows platforms. We have found that we can do all of the right
with the most well-supported API (MSAA) on the most well-supported
(Windows) and prove that we have done so using inspection tools. Yet the
screen readers sometimes won't work sufficiently with the software.
Some would argue that the IT product in this case meets 508. Others
argue that it doesn't and point to the functional performance
depends on how you interpret support "for" assistive technology. Some
lawyers would argue that, in the above case, support "for" assistive
technology has been provided, it's just that the AT isn't using it
In our internal process in IBM, we call this being "enabled" for
accessibility. It means the development team has done their part to
possible for AT to work with it. But further customization of the AT
required to make this actually work for someone. The question is, whose
responsibility is it to ensure that the AT actually works?
In other technology interoperability standards areas, it is quite
test "to the standard." So when customers need things to interoperate
look for things that claim conformance to the standard and there is a
high degree of probability that they will work.
This is not the situation in 508 where, by some interpretations,
conformance to the standard may depend on third party products which are
not required by the regulation to conform to the standard. Am I the only
one who finds this bizarre?
I can see a lot of merit to Rex's argument for levels of accessibility.