Thread Subject: Re: Group A distinguishing
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: Jim Thatcher
Date: Mon, Oct 23 2006 4:40 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Group A distinguishing"
- Previous message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Group A distinguishing"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Don Barrett said in part:
What I like about Al's approach is that it keeps discussion focused on
functional constructs rather than theoretical ones.Â ? That's why
conformance to the web standards has been traditionally easier to test for
than conformance to the software standards.Â Constructs like sufficient
information being exposed by interface elements, ?
I think I agree with you and Al, but I worry about the terminology you used
here, Don. The phrase ?functional constructs? raises the issue of the
?functional standards? (1194.31) for which conformance is most difficult. So
maybe we don?t agree ? let?s see.
I am not sure which word to substitute for functional, but ?testable? is a
consequence. The 508 standards for web and for software include provisions
that are not testable, like ?Sufficient information about a user interface
element including ?? and ?a variety of color selections capable of producing
a range of contrast levels shall be provided? in 1194.21 (software) and ?the
form shall allow people using assistive technology to access the
information? and ?readable without requiring an associated style sheet? in
I think what we want is testable (not necessarily machine testable)
statements. With that as a premise, I have no problem having identical
provisions in software and web, which can end up being in a common set. So
for example both software and web could have standards like the following
modified from WCAG 2.0 and encompassing 1194.21(d):
For all user interface components, the name, role and state can be
programmatically determined, values that can be set by the user can be
programmatically set, and notification of changes to these items is
available to user agents, including assistive technologies. (Several words
and phrases need definitions here, but those are available.)
It is specific, testable, and, as it turns out, is applicable to both
software and web. The fact that it is applicable to both is good news, but,
I think, a conclusion to be drawn later in our process.
Accessibility Consulting: http://jimthatcher.com/