Thread Subject: Re: Proposal on authoring tools
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.
Date: Thu, Jun 07 2007 11:55 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Katie Haritos-Shea: "Re: Proposal on authoring tools"
- Previous message in thread: David Poehlman: "Re: Proposal on authoring tools"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
------- Original Message -------
>From : Peter Korn[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
I think "forces" or something like it will actually
generate problems in
One big concern with #7 is that the "most accessible
is often not testable. It is certainly somewhat
subjective. I think
this has to be advisory, relying on the best judgment
of folks making
With #6, we again have a lot of judgment calls
involved in templates -
how many of the templates, how much facilitation?
Things that are
"musts" need to be testable; I don't know how to test
In a certain sense ALL of this stuff is to some
extent "subjective" and much of what we prescribe
isn't strictly "testable" but what I'm trying to get
across is that the "best judgement of folks making
the tool" has proved that it's somewhat like leaving
the foxes as security guards for the henhouse.
The main reason we have to go through these exercises
is that the "folks making the tool" have been at the
very least resistive (obstructive?) about providing
universal inclusion in the accessibility sense, else
there'd be no problem.
I clearly meant "forces" to be a draconian boundary
case of choices of wording but somehow a breakthrough
in this has to be sought or we will continue to have
"save as HTML" selections that lead to absurd
- Next message in Thread: Katie Haritos-Shea: "Re: Proposal on authoring tools"
- Previous message in Thread: David Poehlman: "Re: Proposal on authoring tools"