Thread Subject: Re: "text" vs. "language"
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: James Elekes
Date: Wed, May 09 2007 10:25 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: James Elekes: "Re: "text" vs. "language""
- Previous message in thread: Sean Hayes: "Re: "text" vs. "language""
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Ideally, the Board's Ad Hoc Committtee-Technologies would prefer
information provided be as dynamic as possible rather than static. As
Chair of the Board's Committtee, it would be my preference to have
the "text" definition and, its parameters provided by TEITAC rather
than the Board's Committee.
James J. Elekes, Chairman
Ad Hoc Committee-Technologies
United States Access Board
At 10:41 AM 5/9/2007, you wrote:
>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
>Could we make a suggestion that the Access Board provide some specific
>boundaries as to what constitutes text?
>Information Technology Accessibility Center - ITAC
>Information Resources Accessibility Program - IRAP
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of William
>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
>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.