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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Mar 19 2007 7:45 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Baker, Robert C.: "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
In WCAG we also talk about the accessible format being findable from the
inaccessible one. Often you just get a link to one format. If it isn't
accessible there needs to be some mechanism to find one that is or it
doesn't help you much.
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Whitney Quesenbery
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 4:36 PM
> To: TEITAC documentation and technical support subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-documentation] Final? draft of 1194.41a,
> b, and c (was discussion of who pays for alternate format)
> At 04:52 PM 3/19/2007, David Poehlman wrote:
> >In other words, do away with alternate formats altogether and talk
> >about compliant formats if you will.
> So, if I posted a "file" in several formats and at least one
> of the formats met each of the general functional performance
> requirements, I'd be in compliance?
> As I think about this, I do this all the time, even outside
> of disabilities considerations. For example, if the
> information if the info is from an application used by some
> (but not all) members of a project, I might send it out in
> the native format, but also send an exported format such as
> text or PDF or HTML. (Example: Microsoft Project, which will
> create a number of formats to read a project plan.)
> The next question is what is a "sufficient" format. Is it
> enough to have formats that (taken as a group) conform to
> requirements? What else must be taken into consideration:
> -- The capabilities of the users' IT be taken into
> consideration? The example above is one (from general use) in
> which the availability of the "reader program" is a consideration.
> -- User preferences? I can see how this might be determined
> through user research in a specific case (easier or perhaps
> more targeted for employees than for the public), but how
> would it be specified as a general requirement.
> -- Availability (% adoption? cost? ease of
> acquisition/installation?) of the AT or "reader program"?
> What if I choose not to install a wildly popular and free
> plugin (e.g.
> Acrobat, Flash)? Is that "my choice" but not "your responsibility"?
> 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: Baker, Robert C.: "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)"