Thread Subject: Re: Thoughts on Current Web Proposal
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 25 2007 10:40 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Barrett, Don: "Re: Thoughts on Current Web Proposal"
- Previous message in thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Thoughts on Current Web Proposal"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
See GV: Below
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 11:06 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Thoughts on Current Web Proposal
> > 1. We have deferred 1194.22(b) to the AV group. by deferring this,
> > the web standards lose their property of being
> self-contained. Each
> > set of standards was developed by the Board so they could
> stand alone;
> > so, for example, both the software standards and the web
> standards had
> > a requirement for forms accessibility. Since captioning on
> the web is
> > critical, we might consider keeping that standard in the
> web group.
> > If the AV subcommittee can make a recommendation to enhance
> it, we can
> > adopt it, but it still belongs in the web standards in
> whatever form
> > it takes.
> No, I don't agree. The current standards address captions,
> but don't include audio description in the web standards.
> I'm the current standards if you want audio and video access
> you must look at 1194.24.
> This is part of why I think that there needs to be a section
> in subpart A that details what sections users need to look at
> for specific types of E&IT. We will never succeed in being
> comprehensive in each section - developers may need to look
> to multiple sections and we need to provide better guidance.
GV: There are many different technologies and more coming into existence.
If we try to list them in Subpart A it will be inaccurate overnight.
But I see the problem. I think we need to qualify the provisions so that
it is clear which ones apply. Then a filter like the one in the filter tool
can be used to make it easy for others to see. The access board can
> > 3. in the proposed replacement for 22(e) and 22(f) and 21(a),
> > * 2.1.1 "All functionality of the content is operable through a
> > keyboard interface without requiring specific timings for
> > keystrokes, except where the underlying task requires analog,
> > time-dependent input,"
> > the phrase "analog, time-dependent input" has been a sticking point
> > for some of us. How do people feel about something like this:
> > "All functionality of the content is operable through a keyboard
> > interface without requiring specific timings for individual
> > keystrokes, except where the underlying task requires a level of
> > control unattainable through a keyboard interface."
> That sounds like an open invitation for developers to feign
GV: Yes. It needs to be objective. "unattainable" is likely to be
abused and is a judgement.
The subgroup is closing on something. Hope to have it to you all soon.
> > 5. I am wondering if we should delete the frames requirement
> > 1194.22(i).
> > At least for screen readers, definitive frame naming is
> helpful, but
> > no longer a major issue in terms of site navigation and
> I still think that this could be lumped under a web standard
> similar to 21d - I'm not convinced that frames are important
> enough to call out individually either, but if we had a
> generalized and non-HTML specific standard that spoke to
> providing identify information for components of web pages
> and content, we could still cover it.
GV: It seems that this should be covered by a provision requiring names on
interface components or visible structures.
In WCAG it would be 1.3.1 and 4.1.2.
- Next message in Thread: Barrett, Don: "Re: Thoughts on Current Web Proposal"
- Previous message in Thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Thoughts on Current Web Proposal"