Thread Subject: Re: 1194.22(b) in Group A: Re: Jim Tobias'commentabout requiring AT
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: Thu, Oct 19 2006 7:05 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Tamas Babinszki: "Re: 1194.22(b) in Group A: Re: Jim Tobias'commentabout requiring AT"
- Previous message in thread: Andi Snow-Weaver: "Re: 1194.22(b) in Group A: Re: Jim Tobias'comment about requiring AT"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Korn [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2006 1:53 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] 1194.22(b) in Group A: Re: Jim
> Tobias' commentabout requiring AT
> Jim's comment on 1194.22(b) is:
> 'Jim Tobias: Going beyond this provision, how about requiring
> operating systems to include certain accessibility features?
> The major operating systems do have such features. The list
> of required features would have to be decided upon, and even
> more difficult, an agreement as to what constitutes an
> "operating system".'
> I am a bit concerned with this. While I'm delighted to see
> what appears to be actual competition among OS vendors in
> bundling AT with their OSes (as we now have competition in
> car manufacturers as to how may air bags they have), I do not
> think we should require that. I think it is wrong to place a
> barrier to entry in the OS market saying that you have to
> provide specific AT with your OS, or specific "accessibility
What is so special about OSs versus application software or websites? How
could it be "wrong" to require OSs, but not apps and sites, to have certain
accessibility features? You may have thought I meant screen readers; I
didn't. I intended us to consider creating a floor for OSs, so that all
future versions would have to have the same kinds of features they have now,
like StickyKeys, etc. Otherwise we risk an unlevel playing field indeed.
Suppose that someone comes up with a really stripped-down OS that can run
the apps an agency needs, but the OS has no accessibility features. Under
the current regs, the app complies with the "do not disrupt" provision, but
since there's nothing in the OS, the user cannot access the app. My
proposal would eliminate the current lack of accessibility requirements for
> I believe we should have outcomes-based requirements (e.g. "a
> user must be able to operate all keyboard functions with a
> single keypress"), and then recommend specific guidance as to
> how to accomplish thing (e.g.
> "cf. StickyKeys capabilities for latching keyboard
> modifiers"), and the finally ensure that we don't foreclose
> innovation (by maintaining 1194.5 Equivalent facilitation
> "Nothing in this part is intended to prevent the use of
> designs or technologies as alternatives to those prescribed
> in this part provided they result in substantially equivalent
> or greater access to and use of a product for people with
> I would not explicitly require in 508 that all OSes must
> include StickyKeys, even though the three most popular
> desktops (Windows, Mac, UNIX) already do.
I'm not sure I really understand your position. Let me try to rephrase what
you've written. Assuming the equivalent facilitation language, would you
support language that says "the operating system must allow a user to
operate all keyboard functions with a single keypress"? If not, why not?
- Next message in Thread: Tamas Babinszki: "Re: 1194.22(b) in Group A: Re: Jim Tobias'commentabout requiring AT"
- Previous message in Thread: Andi Snow-Weaver: "Re: 1194.22(b) in Group A: Re: Jim Tobias'comment about requiring AT"