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: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Tue, Mar 27 2007 1:50 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Rex Lint: "Re: draft language"
- Previous message in thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: draft language"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Your assumption on draft language is correct. We provided an initial draft.
Our next draft is due April 16th and the final draft is due sometime in
June. I hope to have something up on the wiki for tomorrow that looks like
a project plan.
To your second question about relationships between objects, let's hold
that thought until the AT-IT interoperability sub-team comes back with an
updated draft proposal (which I hope will be soon so we can discuss it at
next week's meeting).
This requirement is already in the draft of the Web requirements that is
harmonized with WCAG 2.0  in provisions 22 (g) which requires the
relationships to be programmatically exposed and 22 (k) which requires
notification of changes be made available to AT:
1194.22 (g) Information and relationships conveyed through presentation can
be programmatically determined, and notification of changes to these is
available to user agents, including assistive technologies.
1194.22 (k) For all user interface components, the name and role can be
programmatically determined, states, properties, and values that can be set
by the user can be programmatically determined and programmatically set,
and notification of changes to these items is available to user agents,
including assistive technologies."
Sent by: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee"
teitac-websoftwar < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
03/27/2007 03:11 Re: [teitac-websoftware] draft
Please respond to
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
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