Thread Subject: Re: possible need for another provision
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: Wed, Mar 28 2007 6:10 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Tom Brett: "Re: possible need for another provision"
- Previous message in thread: Truesdell Nick: "Re: possible need for another provision"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
> This looks good to me with one sticking point: the proposal
> references end-users. Generally speaking the act of tweaking
> IT, AT, or both is a task that only employees in a technical
> support would have the system privileges to perform. Could
> perhaps the description of accessibility features of a
> product be separated out from the configuration/activation of
> such features?
I'm reluctant to add this kind of language because it complicates the
text and because it's not always clear what the user can do, is authorized
to do, etc. If the user doesn't have technical privileges to change
some admin setting, nothing in my proposed draft gives them that power.
But it's better to have a user have the info so that he/she can show it to
the sysadmin and explain the purpose of the change, than to give it only to
the sysadmin who may then ignore it.
- Next message in Thread: Tom Brett: "Re: possible need for another provision"
- Previous message in Thread: Truesdell Nick: "Re: possible need for another provision"