Thread Subject: Re: Thoughts on Current Web Proposal

Note

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: Barrett, Don
Date: Mon, Mar 26 2007 3:45 AM

"No, I don't agree. The current standards address captions, but don't
include audio description in the web standards."

Andrew: Sorry, but I think the present standard in referring to any
multi-media includes audio description and has been quite sufficient
thus far. "(b) Equivalent alternatives for any multimedia presentation
shall be synchronized with the presentation."

"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."

I must vehemently oppose cross-standard applicability. We have listened
to hundreds of developers over the years who are overwhelmed and have to
be taught the one set of standards which applies to their product, let
alone the complex inter-relationships that cross standard applicability
would inject into the process. Again, this has been working very very
well in government testing situations I know about. I am not aiming for
over simplification, but simplicity and clarity if it can be achieved.
You mention later on your concern about developers being given the
opportunity to "feign ignorance." Give them multiple sets of standards
with which they must comply and you'll see more ignorance than we know
what to do about.

I am curious to see what GV comes up with regarding a replacement for
time-dependent analog input. If its simple, clear, and protects
disabled people in Federal jobs, it will get my vote.

Don




-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andrew
Kirkpatrick
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 12:06 AM
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.

> 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
> individual 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 ignorance...

> 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 comprehension.

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.

AWK

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University