Thread Subject: Re: possible need for another provision

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: Jim Tobias
Date: Tue, Mar 27 2007 7:05 AM

Whitney raises the valid point that companies frequently document
interoperability, and
that they do so to reduce the support calls they would otherwise receive.
If that's a
driver, then making the sale in the first place would be even more powerful
a driver. That's
the role we want accessibility to play, so adding a provision about AT
interoperability
and accessibility features makes sense.

Note that in my proposed re-draft of 41(b):

"End-users and technology managers shall have access to a description of
the accessibility and compatibility features of products, including how
to install, configure, and activate them. These descriptions shall be
available in alternate formats or alternate methods upon request, at no
additional charge."

that the agency is still the burdened party. This gives agencies leeway as
to how to come into possession of AT interoperability information. They can
request them as part of market research, require that they be delivered as
part of the procurement if the bid is successful, and probably through other
mechanisms.

To reply to Terry's point that the VPAT permits such information, I agree
that
it does. However, the VPAT does not require the information, nor is it
usually
found in any level of specificity that would be useful in reviewing the
implementation issues and comparing products. I'm sorry if I appear to bash
the
VPAT sometimes. One dissatisfaction I have about it is that many companies
know much more about the accessibility and compatibility of their products
than
they put in their VPAT. I'd like to remedy that situation without
undercutting
vendors' ability to market their products and preserve their intellectual
property.
That may mean re-engineering the VPAT, but this provision does not insist on
that.
To me, delivering complete accessibility and compatibility information after
the
sale is more valuable than delivering incomplete information before the
sale.




***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Whitney Quesenbery [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 3:13 PM
> To: TEITAC documentation and technical support subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-documentation] possible need for another
> provision
>
> To add to Jim's email:
>
> One of the points that was raised in the conversation was
> that we can't expect vendors to create documentation for how
> their product works with specific AT.
>
> I'd like to challenge that a little bit.
>
> Product manufacturers often provide software application
> notes that describe how to connect their product to other
> products. For example, early HP LaserJet 4 documentation
> packages included notes on using the printer with several
> popular word processors. Note that they didn't document each
> and every word processor on the market - I'm sure the
> decision was based on numbers of users (market potential) or
> how many technical support calls they thought they could
> avoid by providing the information up front.
>
> These notes often filled the gap during the time when new
> features of the product or operating system were possible,
> but not yet well known. Isn't that exactly where we are?
>
> Having said all this, I'm not sure how to draft a requirement
> (or even a "should" guideline).
>
> Whitney

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