Thread Subject: Re: API Requirements proposal
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: Barrett, Don
Date: Mon, Apr 02 2007 9:40 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: API Requirements proposal"
- Previous message in thread: Peter Korn: "Re: API Requirements proposal"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
I like it. In (c), do we need "and is sufficient." Why not just end it
with "provided."
With regard to (f), I recommend we add the term "accessibility services
for platforms" to the definitions in Subpart A, so no one can say they
never heard of them or don't know what they are.
I concur with deleting the current (f) if the new (d) is adopted.
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Snow-Weaver
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 7:57 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] API Requirements proposal
The API requirements sub-group is ready to put forward a proposal for
modifications to 1194.21 (c), (d), and (f). [1]
Please review this proposal and provide your comments and feedback via
the
mailing list. We will add this to the agenda for Wednesday's meeting.
[1]
http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Accessibility_API_Requirements_
Draft_3
Andi
- Next message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: API Requirements proposal"
- Previous message in Thread: Peter Korn: "Re: API Requirements proposal"
WebAIM is an initiative of:
