Thread Subject: Re: 21 g - revision

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Mar 29 2007 7:35 AM

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

Hi Don,

I think "all the documented OS function settings" is fine.

It is when we say "setting that are documented to industry standards" that
there was a problem, without a definition of what "industry standards" means
or are.


Also we should specify what contrast level should be achievable.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Barrett, Don
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:44 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] 21 g - revision
>
> I thought though that that was the whole point -- that at
> least all standard documented OS functional settings would be
> honored by an application. If, as you say, they are not,
> then the app shouldn't have to respect them. If that wasn't
> what was supposed to be, then why not simply state:
> "Applications shall display themselves utilizing user
> selected contrast and color selections and other individual
> display attributes."
>
> If we just leave out the phrase " when the availability of
> those selections are developed and documented as standard
> operating system functions," then all settings, regardless of
> where they originate are covered.
> What am I missing?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 5:40 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] 21 g - revision
>
> Hmmm
> This has the same problem. "What if they are not?"
>
>
> Can we just specify real values of contrast that should be possible?
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > Barrett, Don
> > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 4:22 PM
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] 21 g - revision
> >
> > What about
> >
> > "Applications shall display themselves utilizing user selected
> > contrast and color selections and other individual display
> attributes
> > when the availability of those selections are developed and
> documented
> > as standard operating system functions."
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Gregg
> > Vanderheiden
> > Sent: Monday, March 26, 2007 4:58 PM
> > To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> > Subject: [teitac-websoftware] 21 g - revision
> >
> > The proposed (new) wording is:
> >
> >
> >
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm not sure this will work. The proposed new wording
> > appears to not
> > be testable as formulated and appears to be more limited than the
> > original.
> >
> >
> >
> > Some questions
> >
> >
> >
> > 1) What if there are no industry standards? Do you not have to
> > respect user settings?
> >
> > - What are the industry standards for documentation?
> >
> > - What are the industry standards for development.
> >
> > We would need to define these terms and point to the
> industry standard
> > in order to allow anyone to use this.
> >
> >
> >
> > 2) This provision seems to say that you don't have to honor user
> > settings if the settings are not developed using the standards.
> >
> >
> >
> > 3) The term 'utilize' is also unclear. Does this mean follow? Or
> > just use them in their calculations?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > The old wording had no such conditions so this would be
> considerably
> > weaker.
> >
> >
> >
> > Can we use wording like WCAG?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> >
> > ------------------------
> >
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> > Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> > Director - Trace R & D Center
> > University of Wisconsin-Madison
> > <http://trace.wisc.edu/ <http://trace.wisc.edu/> > FAX 608/262-8848
> >
> > DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b>
> >
> > <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

• Next message in Thread: Barrett, Don: "Re: 21 g - revision"
• Previous message in Thread: David Poehlman: "Re: 21 g - revision"