Thread Subject: Re: 21 g - revision

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Mar 27 2007 1:00 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Fratkin, Mike: "Re: 21 g - revision"
• Previous message in thread: Peter Korn: "Re: 21 g - revision"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Agree
But what does it mean there? I was suggesting we remove it or define it
there and then it gets duplicated here.

Does anyone know what it means?

Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:53 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] 21 g - revision
>
> Gregg,
>
> As I said, the proposal for 21(g) is not perfect. It is
> better. The phrase means whatever it means in 21(b). <grin>
>
> Andi
>
>
>
>
>
> "Gregg
>
> Vanderheiden"
>
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> To
> u> "'TEITAC Web/Software
>
> Sent by: Subcommittee'"
>
> teitac-websoftwar
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> itac.org
> cc
>
>
>
> Subject
> 03/27/2007 12:37 Re:
> [teitac-websoftware] 21 g -
> PM revision
>
>
>
>
>
> Please respond to
>
> TEITAC
>
> Web/Software
>
> Subcommittee
>
> <teitac-websoftwa
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> g>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks Andi,
>
> With the revision, both of these would now use the term
> "documented according to industry standards"
>
> Only features or settings that are documented in this way
> would need to be honored.
>
> What does the phrase mean? What standards does it refer to?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Andi
> > Snow-Weaver
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 12:22 PM
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] 21 g - revision
> >
> > The wording in the 21(g) proposal that seems to be causing
> the concern
> > was chosen to improve the existing 21(g) and harmonize it
> with 21(b)
> > which also uses that wording.
> >
> > Current wording:
> >
> > 21(b) Applications shall not disrupt or disable activated
> features of
> > other products that are identified as accessibility features, where
> > those features are developed and documented according to industry
> > standards.
> > Applications also shall not disrupt or disable activated
> features of
> > any operating system that are identified as accessibility features
> > where the application programming interface for those accessibility
> > features has been documented by the manufacturer of the operating
> > system and is available to the product developer.
> >
> > 21(g) Applications shall not override user selected
> contrast and color
> > selections and other individual display attributes.
> >
> > Proposed wording:
> >
> > 21(b) - no change. We discussed the testabilty issues with
> > 21(b) but were unable to reach consensus on a recommendation for
> > changing the wording.
> >
> > 21(g) Applications shall utilize user selected contrast and color
> > selections and other individual display attributes when the
> > availability of those selections are developed and documented
> > according to industry standards.
> >
> > The problem with the original wording is that "other individual
> > display attributes" is very vague. The proposed wording was
> viewed as
> > an improvement, although certainly not perfect.
> >
> > Andi
> >
> >
> >
> >

• Next message in Thread: Fratkin, Mike: "Re: 21 g - revision"
• Previous message in Thread: Peter Korn: "Re: 21 g - revision"