Thread Subject: Re: Suggested update to 6.1.I so we canremove6.1.B and 6.1.C (forms & scripting)

Note

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: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Thu, Jun 07 2007 12:50 PM

You are correct, it is confusing.

However, trying to figure out how to present the standards in the "zero"
state as mentioned in the May discussions at the TEITAC face-to-face, it
becomes almost impossible to assign standards effectively at some point
without repeating them to extreme. For example, software would be
referenced repeatedly in telecomm and web, multimedia referenced in
telecomm, and closed products are just ridiculous.

It is confusing and my best suggestion is to take them piece by piece.
I use the h key in JAWS to read headers quickly, assemble the outline in
my head (space permitting), and then kind of map them internally.


I; am also extracting the whole thing to a word file for my own use that
eliminates all the wiki clutter. If you want, Don, I'll email it to you
for your use as well, but I don't think it would be a good idea to post
it on the wiki as people may start getting version-dysfunction.



Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
Barrett, Don
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 1:29 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)

I looked at the May 30 version and it seems as if all of the current
standards are peppered throughout and it is quite confusing; It may be
just that I alone am confused; what is going on? Is that version
correct?


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
Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 5:09 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Suggested update to 6.1.I so we can
remove6.1.B and 6.1.C (forms & scripting)

Let me go back to the wiki and revisit.
thanks.



Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter
Korn
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 5:03 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Suggested update to 6.1.I so we can
remove 6.1.B and 6.1.C (forms & scripting)

Hi Allen,

I think it would be helpful if we referred to the May 30 draft from the
Editorial Working Group in these discussions.

The change I suggested to 6.1.I (see
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_May_30#I.) is part of section 6.1,
which is titled: "If Web or Application Content", which is itself part
of section 6, titled "Electronic Content Provisions". I think 6.1.I
would apply to an PDF form. If not, perhaps we should clarify that in
the 6.1 title.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> Currently forms are addressed in web and software, and we are
> proposing removing that explicit reference as we have delineated what
> must be done for those types of interface elements explicitly. I am
> all for this removal.
>
> 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 Information, documentation, and support the first requirement
> proposed now is that documentation meets (insert broad reference to
> subparts B and C), and is in at least one format that meets content
> format accessibility requirements. One theme of TIETAC explicitly
> drawn out at the beginning by the Access-Board was that we should
> decide if content is addressed by 508, and if so how.
>
> To my knowledge current practices include:
> Apply existing web standards broadly to non-HTML content;
> Only apply functional performance criteria to non-HTML content;
> Don't apply anything at all to non-web content;
>
> Content is the largest area we face as almost everyone generates
> content. One-on-one transmission of content from person to person may

> not need to comply with Section 508, but content that migrates towards

> broader audiences or is intended to be read by someone with a
> disability must meet such requirements in my view. Its hard to have
> this both ways, and the impact of including content beyond HTML is
> huge without the simultaneous introduction of requirements for
> authoring tools, now forthcoming from this group.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Question is as I read this, this requirement below is for web, not web

> and software both right?
>
> Peter Korn wrote (before taking off)
> In the Web & Software subcommittee con-call today, we discussed
> removing the forms and scripting provisions because they are covered
> by our other provisions. In order to ensure that people reading the
> standard don't inadvertently think that forms & script-generated pages

> aren't covered, I suggest we simply note them in provision 6.1.I.
>
> Therefore, I suggest the new 6.1.I be:
>
> "For all user interface components, including form elements and those
> generated by scripts, the name and role shall be programmatically
> determinable, states, properties, and values that can be set by the
> user shall be programmatically determinable and can be
> programmatically set, and notification of changes to these items is
> available to user agents, including assistive technologies. For
> example: 1. Frames shall be titled with text that facilitates frame
identification and navigation."
>
> With this addition, we can then comfortably remove 6.1.B, which is:
>
> "When electronic forms are used, 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."
>
> And we can further remove 6.1.C., which is:
>
> "When pages utilize scripting languages to display content, or to
> create interface elements, the information provided by the script
> shall be identified with functional text that can be read by assistive

> technology."
>
>

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University