Thread Subject: Re: API Requirements proposal

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Apr 03 2007 8:45 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: terry.weaver@gsa.gov: "Re: API Requirements proposal"
• Previous message in thread: Peter Korn: "Re: API Requirements proposal"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

THanks Peter,

Yes - in the general group we were / are looking at over organization. And
putting a header on it would be the way we were suggesting for things that
are tied to just one type of product.


Hmmmm

The remaining questions then would be

- what about smart phones that sort of have an OS in them?
- what about smart phones that DO have an OS in them?
- what about 'installed AT compatibility' in anything besides things that
have an OS?
- what constitutes and OS?


Thinking forward.


Thanks


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Peter Korn
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 2:13 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] API Requirements proposal
>
> Hi Gregg,
>
> > Do we want to say something about being on a system that
> supports AT
> > or something? Else this could get applied to phones, or
> even advance
> > calculators?
> >
>
> Right now this is part of 1194.21 "Software applications and
> operating systems". That title is one way of distinguishing
> this from phones & calculators. I know the General group is
> looking at attribute-based groupings. I believe most (all?)
> of us in this group had desktop computing systems in mind
> when we crafted this language.
>
> "on a system that supports AT" is I think tricky language
> (with a hole in it you could drive something large through).
> One could make a credible argument that Windows 3.1 and
> Macintosh (through System 7 at
> least) and many other desktop systems that ran AT were
> systems that "support AT" - AT was done in spite of them. A
> number of cell phones today might be likewise in that camp.
>
> At the same time, if some AT vendor somewhere managed to
> reverse engineer something (even an advanced calculator),
> would that mean that from that day forward no applications
> could be acquired by the Federal Government for that
> calculator unless such software met everything in (the new)
> 1194.21(d)? The existence of AT on a given device isn't the
> best measure of this either.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
> >
> > Nicely done.
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Andi
> >> Snow-Weaver
> >> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 6:57 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_Req
> >> uirements_Draft_3
> >>
> >> Andi
> >>
> >>

• Next message in Thread: terry.weaver@gsa.gov: "Re: API Requirements proposal"
• Previous message in Thread: Peter Korn: "Re: API Requirements proposal"