Thread Subject: Re: "new provisions"
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: Truesdell Nick
Date: Mon, Apr 16 2007 10:30 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: None
- Previous message in thread: Tom Brett: "Re: "new provisions""
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
This is a topic currently being worked out by the Subpart A group
specifically in an attempt to define the term "comparable access."
Nick Truesdell
Information Technology Accessibility Center - ITAC
Information Resources Accessibility Program - IRAP
Desk: 202-283-5536
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom Brett
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 6:25 PM
To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] "new provisions"
You have to remember that Congress said that it would be accessible. I
don't think that we would be able to override what Congress has written
using the standards. I do know that there are government agencies that
try to look for any loop hole they can find to avoid being conformant
with the standards. This is why it is so important that there be no
wiggle room in the provisions.
Tom Brett, ATACP
Section 508/Section 255 Specialist,
888.896.8579
Voice/TTY: 301.942.9768
TCS Associates, an Abacus-N-Bytes, Inc. Company 8(a)/MBE Certified GSA
Schedule GS-35F-0512L www.tcsassociates.com
Fax: 301.942.9110
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of William
Loughborough
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 6:17 PM
To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] "new provisions"
Tom Brett wrote:
> Actually the concept is pretty well explained in the actual law
> (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=29&sec=794d)
That's what I'm talking about, just hadn't sought it out properly, thank
you.
Given that, we can be much more demanding: the intent is to provide
equal usability, not just some vague idea of what's minimally
accessible. And there are cases where we do that. But we also gloss over
situations where we seem to be looking for copouts (workarounds) without
fully assessing how tedious it is to have a single switch input or read
through a straw.
Love.
- Next message in Thread: None
- Previous message in Thread: Tom Brett: "Re: "new provisions""
WebAIM is an initiative of:
