Thread Subject: Re: 1194.22(b) in Group A: Re: Jim Tobias'commentabout requiring AT

Note

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: Tamas Babinszki
Date: Thu, Oct 19 2006 7:50 PM

Peter writes:
"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 operating
systems (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 features"."

I think operating systems should contain certain accessibility features.
When accessibility features are missing, the operating system maybe such
that a software running under it might not be able to be accessible.
Consider the Orca project for Linux for example. Without implementing a
level of accessibility features into the OS, assistive technologies would
have nothing to rely on. Also, it would be a huge Burdon on the software
manufacturers to come up with their own accessibility features, which would
also restrict usability, given that the users would have to learn to use
them every time they learn a new software.

An other thought I have about operating systems, is that all operating
systems can be classified as software, but not all softwares are operating
systems. Thus, operating systems should be compliant with all standards,
after all, they are also constitute as a government purchase. I would like
to see some standards, which set the foundation of a solid and accessible
operating systems, so that all applications and assistive technologies would
be able to run on them.

Tamas

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University