Thread Subject: Re: What is good enough to qualify forcompatibilitywith AT?
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: Debbie Cook
Date: Mon, Mar 12 2007 11:50 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Mark D. Urban: "Re: What is good enough to qualifyforcompatibilitywith AT?"
- Previous message in thread: Sailesh Panchang: "Re: What is good enough to qualify forcompatibilitywith AT?"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Yes, this is a huge issue. It is partially addresed in the discussions of
the Closed and General groups where we have talked about working iwth
available AT. This owuld imply that developers would need to work with AT
manufacturers if the AT that would reasonably be used wasn't available
because it didn't exist.
I don't think we can every require that prodeucts work with all available
AT--JAWS & WindowEyes for example. B
ut a federal procurement could argue that the available AT for them is JAWS
and therefore the product must work with it or of course has the option to
provide its own.
With respect to the speech and Braille analogy, it isn't applicale when it
ocmes to software becaue anything that works with speech could be made to
work with Braille if the AT is available. It does apply to Closed systems
where you arguably may require more than one form of output--speech,
Braille, enlargement. For many closed products, providing Braille output
would not be as expensive as thought. For others, the AT is probably not
Some of this is also going to tie into our future discussions of cost
benefit. This is all important--I hope we don't lose track of it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Baquis David " < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 11:31 AM
Subject: [teitac-general] What is good enough to qualify for
Some people think compatibility with just one AT is sufficient. And they
will argue that Subpart C did not explicitly say that it had to work
with more than one AT. This goes to product brands (e.g. JAWS and
Window Eyes) as well as product types (e.g. refreshable braille displays
and screen readers).
To stretch this even further, an IT developer could argue that the IT is
perfectly 508-conformant through compatible design, even though it does
not work with any AT on the market currently, because it could work with
AT if the AT manufacturers made the AT differently/better. Or would you
disagree with that? Those of us on the front line providing technical
assistance need this to be clear in the final standards so that our
answers do not sound like they arbitrarily came from Access Board staff.
I want something in writing to put my finger on.
I skimmed the wiki and archived email discussions but did not see this
directly addressed. This is one of those issues that have come to the
Access Board many times and which need to be resolved in the refresh 508
standards. We would like the TEITAC to address it. Would it be an
interoperability sufficiency issue?
This is tied to a discussion in January about problems with one version
but not another version of a product. Perhaps all of these variations of
the issue (versions, brands, AT types, etc) could be handled in one
U.S. Access Board
1331 F Street, NW, #1000
Washington, DC 20004
800-USA-ABLE; (202) 272-0013 (voice)
www.access-board.gov; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = "Leading the way to
excellence in accessibility"
- Next message in Thread: Mark D. Urban: "Re: What is good enough to qualifyforcompatibilitywith AT?"
- Previous message in Thread: Sailesh Panchang: "Re: What is good enough to qualify forcompatibilitywith AT?"