Thread Subject: Re: Final? draft of 1194.41a, b,and c (was discussion of who pays for alternate format)
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: Mon, Mar 19 2007 4:00 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Final? draft of 1194.41a, b,and c (was discussion of who pays for alternate format)"
- Previous message in thread: David Poehlman: "Re: Final? draft of 1194.41a, b,and c (was discussion of who pays for alternate format)"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
This example fits with my thinking. It iss not a format exactly, it
is a conceptual format.. The actuall concept I think is a diagramm
with complete narative. In this way, the diagram can be detatched or
made tactile etc. The fconcepts would be audio, visual, electronic
textual and tactile aand probably others and an appropriate mixture
for meetinggg multiiple functional needs. So, the bigggest issues we
have here are what electronic forms something should take in order to
satisfy our requirements that the content be acccessible. Tactile
and audio are almost easy although we could set standards for them as
well relying on information ffrom the Library of congress (NLS),,
AAmerican foundation for the blind and others. Whether it is mixed
content or pure graphical or textual, it needs too bee in formats
which meet requirements yet to be deterrmined. In my estimate, what
would be a logical approach would be that if it is streight text,
there needs to be something diamagratic or visually apppropriate to
rrepresent it for those who need that and vise verssa. If it is
purely graphical, it needs to also be textual. This can become
complex and it can also bboil down to an easy way to meet needs..
IiIn other words, mixed content must meet functional requirements.
and that is where the formats come into play for dealing with the
objects in the content. Pleae remember, we haven't written these
requirements as yet but if it is possible to do so, I believe a lot
of ambiguity can be dealt with.
On Mar 19, 2007, at 6:37 PM, Whitney Quesenbery wrote:
At 06:26 PM 3/19/2007, David Poehlman wrote:
> dp: I don't see how a group of formats could be taken to meet the
> requirements but I supposse that the requirements could be written
> and or enterpreted in that way. I'd actually like to see
> requirements such that we get cross modality in open standards in any
> compliant format but failing that, we could have a provision or set
> of provisions which allow for multiiple formats to meet the
> requirements as a whole.
WQ: Good point, in applications/formats where this is possible. What
a diagram in a graphics format and an accompanying textual description.
Whitney Interactive Design
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
"Warning: Objects in the calendar are closer than they appear."