Thread Subject: Re: "text" vs. "language"
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: Wed, May 09 2007 9:45 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Andi Snow-Weaver: "Re: "text" vs. "language""
- Previous message in thread: William Loughborough: ""text" vs. "language""
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
William brings up an interesting point. Often in the context of applying
the software provisions to an application there is some level of
assumption regarding the term "text." This can be assumed to be a string
of letters, numbers, punctuation marks, and spaces (as opposed to
graphics, sounds, pictures of text, or other presentation mechanisms)
that when put together can be read and enhanced by assistive
technologies. But, the question remains of this type of assumption is
reasonable.
Could we make a suggestion that the Access Board provide some specific
boundaries as to what constitutes text?
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 William
Loughborough
Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2007 9:54 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] "text" vs. "language"
* 3.3.1 Error Identification: If an input error is automatically
detected, the item that is determined to be in error is identified and
described to the user in text.
******************************************************************
Frequently there is some ambiguity requiring term expansion when we use
the word "text". This is in part because the near-immediate picture we
get is of marks on paper (that were often originally intended as
notation for speech) when what we intend is ANY language-transmitted
information.
Without interfering with the sub-committee's process/schedule, I would
propose that we find places like the one quoted above where the
requirement is for communication via language, not just through print.
There's probably a glossary somewhere that defines "text" in some other
way than as print, but the reader's mind is likely to opine that the
term refers to printed (rather than voiced or haptic) communication.
Hence using "language" precludes elaborate explanations about formatting
information to meet the provision.
Love.
- Next message in Thread: Andi Snow-Weaver: "Re: "text" vs. "language""
- Previous message in Thread: William Loughborough: ""text" vs. "language""
WebAIM is an initiative of:
