Thread Subject: Re: 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes
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: Debbie Cook
Date: Wed, Jun 06 2007 1:40 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes"
- Previous message in thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
That's an interesting turn. In all other cases we've said that products can
be compatible with AT or they can elect to not be. We've said that when they
elect not to be then they must provide comparable access as if they were
compatible with AT. But for DRM, you're proposing they do not have the
option? They cannot lock out AT and provide their own AT functionality if
desired? If this becomes our recommendation, I propose that we write it and
ship it over to software for inclusion there because it would fit more
closely with their focus of assuming compatibility with AT.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes
What we would require of products that include DRM is that when
assistive technology is used it can not be "locked" out by the DRM
scheme for any reason, especially based upon copyrights, as exclusion of
people with disabilities is not supported in copyrights law to my
Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Debbie Cook
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 3:21 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-closed] 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes
Oops. I forgot these notes from the May plenary:
We were asked to specifically consider issues of closed by policy with
DRM as an example. Also to consider products with no OS.
I don't know of anything specific to require of DRM products that would
not be required of other products? Open to how we should incorporate
mention of these--requirements? In a note?
WA Assistive Technology Program
Seattle, WA 98195-7920
- Next message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes"
- Previous message in Thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes"