Thread Subject: Re: draft language
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: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Tue, Mar 27 2007 1:15 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Andi Snow-Weaver: "Re: draft language"
- Previous message in thread: None
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Just a question:
I understood we were providing a draft of our recommendations to at
least get the boundaries in place for the editorial group to begin to
see the "big" picture from. Did we do that? If so, are we straying in
to areas where we would dramatically revise our recommendation
previously sent? I may not even be opposed to drastic revisions but I
just want to understand where we are.
One other note:
At CSUN I participated in several discussions where "relation" was
brought up as one of the capacities needed to make software accessible.
Peter or Andi I'm sure you have the better definition of "relation" but
basically my understanding is that when action occurs for an interface
element, it triggers a change to another interface element. This
concept is one of the most needed missing pieces when dealing with web
2.0 accessibility, and is needed in software accessibility.
Could we say:
When software provides the ability in one user interface element to
simultaneously react to end-user actions in more than a single user
element, such changes, including identity, operation, state, and focus
are exposed to assistive technology, or in closed systems, provided for
use to people with disabilities.
The idea is that A relates to B since A affects B's output.
DHS Office on Accessible systems & Technology
- Next message in Thread: Andi Snow-Weaver: "Re: draft language"
- Previous message in Thread: None