Thread Subject: Re: Comments on CLOSED REPORT
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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Mar 18 2007 11:45 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: None
- Previous message in thread: Whitney Quesenbery: "Re: Comments on CLOSED REPORT"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Yes that would be true for most products.
But not if a product is 'closed'
If it is closed, by definition it can't be accessed by AT. So then the
provision kicks in. In fact all the closed provisions kick in.
On could argue that the Functional performance items make the whole closed
characteristic and rules unnecessary. But then you could say that they
would make all of the provisions unnecessary.
The problem is that people can't extrapolate well and need the detailed
guidance. We even see people doing ONLY the technical and ignoring the
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Whitney Quesenbery
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 2:19 PM
> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Comments on CLOSED REPORT
> At 12:04 PM 3/18/2007, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> >1194.25 (a)
> >The report says "Proposed that self-contained is a functional
> >characteristic of either hardware or software rather than a class of
> >products. Identify that a closed product function could be
> by design,
> >policy or perhaps other reasoning. Not requiring AT will be
> changed to
> >reflect that AT is not readily available or that a choice
> has been made
> >not to be compatible with available AT."
> >COMMENT: This is good. But the old provisions should still apply.
> >That is, if AT is not available/usable - then the product
> needs to be
> >usable without AT (which is what the current provision says. No?)
> But isn't that the point of the new structure? That a product
> must meet either the provisions to be accessible in at least
> one mode OR support AT?
> Whitney Quesenbery
> Whitney Interactive Design
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> phone: 908-638-5467
> mobile: 908-328-5959
> "Warning: Objects in the calendar are closer than they appear."
- Next message in Thread: None
- Previous message in Thread: Whitney Quesenbery: "Re: Comments on CLOSED REPORT"