Thread Subject: Re: Suggested update to 6.1.I so wecanremove6.1.B and 6.1.C (forms & scripting)

From: Victor Tsaran
Date: Wed, Jun 06 2007 2:45 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Suggested update to 6.1.I so wecanremove6.1.B and 6.1.C (forms & scripting)"
• Previous message in thread: Barrett, Don: "Re: Suggested update to 6.1.I so we canremove6.1.B and 6.1.C (forms & scripting)"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

--- Tom Brett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> This would not only be a problem for screen reader users but
> would also
> prevent people using speech to text technology from completing
> forms.
>
> Tom Brett
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Barrett,
> Don
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 4:34 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Suggested update to 6.1.I so
> wecanremove6.1.B and 6.1.C (forms & scripting)
>
> Andrew,
>
> 21(d) Sufficient information about a user interface element
> including
> the identity, operation and state of the element shall be
> available to
> assistive technology. . . . ."
>
> The main problem with this applying to forms is that it is too
> general
> and non-specific. For example, if I tab to an edit box, and
> just hear
> "edit," I know it is focusable; I know it is empty; and I know
> it is an
> edit box. It has met D as prescribed above. If however, if
> its label
> isn't programmatically associated with the edit box, I have no
> idea what
> to type into it. Meeting D isn't enough.
> Don Barrett
> Section 508 Coordinator
> U.S. Department of Education
> (202)-205-8245
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andrew
> Kirkpatrick
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 4:23 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Suggested update to 6.1.I so
> we
> canremove6.1.B and 6.1.C (forms & scripting)
>
> Allen,
>
> > What we don't have is something that states what standard
> must be met
> > for interface elements delivered that are not coded in HTML,
> or pure
> > software. PDF forms are not addressed directly to my
> knowledge,
> > neither would forms in Microsoft Word .doc format--or
> open-document
> > format for that matter.
>
> In the current standard? Sure they are! You can debate
> whether PDF
> forms are a 1194.21 or 1194.22 item, but currently 21(d) would
> cover PDF
> form controls:
>
> 21(d) Sufficient information about a user interface element
> including
> the identity, operation and state of the element shall be
> available to
> assistive technology. When an image represents a program
> element, the
> information conveyed by the image must also be available in
> text.
>
> 22(n) When electronic forms are designed to be completed
> on-line, the
> form shall allow people using assistive technology to access
> the
> information, field elements, and functionality required for
> completion
> and submission of the form, including all directions and cues.
>
>
> 22(n) was replaced with something more like 21d, and since
> 22(n) is
> replacable with 21(d) it makes sense to remove 21(l)
> altogether, rather
> than keep the redundnacy.
>
> > I think we still need an overarching statement (somewhere)
> that says
> > content must meet (x,y,z). We have it for HTML and
> generalized
> > audio/video content, but not for anything else.
>
> Where do you see it for HTML specifically?
>
> > I propose that this be the first item in
> > information/documentation/support, or included in functional
>
> > performance criteria, and forms should be explicitly
> mentioned to
> > eliminate any ambiguity about them.
>
> I disagree. This is not about documentation, this is about
> web and
> software applications and their controls. The documentation
> section
> already refers to support of the relevant sections.
>
> > Question is as I read this, this requirement below is for
> web, not web
>
> > and software both right?
>
> Yes, but there is a nearly identical standard in software.
>
> AWK
>

• Next message in Thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: Suggested update to 6.1.I so wecanremove6.1.B and 6.1.C (forms & scripting)"
• Previous message in Thread: Barrett, Don: "Re: Suggested update to 6.1.I so we canremove6.1.B and 6.1.C (forms & scripting)"