Thread Subject: Re: Web Content -- stand alone section?

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: Barrett, Don
Date: Wed, Jun 20 2007 8:50 PM

Peter, unfortunately the 508 coordinators who must apply, help
interpret, and implement these standards need divergence; many of them
are not technical at all and are EEO people for example. They know
nothing about disability or accessibility, and need simple well-labeled
boxes they can reference in terms of which standards apply to what
technology. I think you are expecting too much of a group who can't and
won't try to ascertain which standards apply from a larger pool.
You also say
"I'm very confident developers can distinguish between 'software' and
'hardware'."

We find that many developers consider accessibility an esoteric study,
and have no idea which standards apply; only the really savvy ones are
willing to spend the time to read and understand the 508 standards.
Many of the rest are pretty bad at it as they have no concept of the
goals or outcomes desired from the standard.
They don't know a screen reader from a monitor stand, and we have had
numerous developers ask the most basic questions about the standards
until they get what accessibility is all about. To the extent we can
delineate, repeat, and simplify, we will be doing a big service.

Don




-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter
Wallack
Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 8:29 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Web Content -- stand alone section?

I'm really having a hard time justifying any distinction between 'web'
and 'software', and I'm afraid this proposal did not help me at all. It
seems to me that proposing mostly parallel sets of standards can only
inevitably lead to divergence, as is so clearly obvious in the current
508 standards. Justifying the distinction based on some technicality
(HTTP) that means absolutely nothing to most of our ultimate audience
(disabled users, *not* developers) doesn't help. And vendors are
aggressively doing everything possible to remove any distinction between
'software' and 'web apps' (thats a major point of Web 2.0, is it not?)
so organizing standards which are based on this distinction doesn't seem
particularly beneficial to anyone either. Specific comments follow
Gregg's 'rationale' items:

i. You can't apply Functional Performance Criteria for some parts
of Web content without first including the web content players (user
agent) software.
A similar argument can be made for software relying on the OS layer, so
this can be dealt with in one place by defining the responsibilities of
an OS and platform.

ii. Web developers might be confused if reading the whole list of
provisions (hardware, software etc) since
some sound like they apply but don't.
I'm very confident developers can distinguish between 'software' and
'hardware'. Given the difficulties we have of defining 'web content' I
think creating this particular distinction is itself the source of the
confusion. And as far as I'm concerned, if someone applies a standard
that really wasn't meant for them, thats a good thing.

iii. To facilitate harmonization.
Yes, this is absolutely worth doing. But I'd argue that if you take any
WCAG 2.0 guidelines and genericize just a very few words like 'user
agent', you'd have guidelines that apply to all software, since they are
all based on fundamental principles.

iv. To allow tweaking if things must be a little different for
content
The only reason I can think of that tweaking would be necessary is if we
propose specific coding solutions, which we appear to not be doing.
Anyway, should that be necessary on an exceptional basis, a simple Note
could handle it.

v. There is so much in Web that it only requires adding a few more
to make it complete
Thats not really a valid argument.


Peter Wallack
Accessibility Program Director
Oracle Corporation


Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

Per request on call today - here is a summary of where the group
ended up in its discussion today on this topic.



Proposed



1) That a definition of Web Content be established so it
is clear when something is Web content or not.

a. A possible definition is posted separately

2) That Web Content section be developed as an independent
list of provisions that are self contained.

a. Rationale


i. You can't apply Functional Performance Criteria for some parts
of Web content without first including the web content players (user
agent) software.

ii.
Web developers might be confused if reading the whole list of provisions
(hardware, software etc) since some sound like they apply but don't.

iii.
To facilitate harmonization.

iv.
To allow tweaking if things must be a little different for content

v.
There is so much in Web that it only requires adding a few more to make
it complete

3) That AV be included in the Web section as it applies to
web content.

a. Rationale


i. AV is key part of Web

ii.
AV is somewhat different on web than off the web

iii.
Harmonization

b. If language is identical to non-web then either


i. Include in Web anyway

ii.
Include in Web only by means of a pointer to AV IF CFR FORMATTING
ALLOWS this type of cross reference

4) That a note be included in Web Section that General
Technical and Software provisions may apply if product is basically
software delivered via the web.

a. For example software that doesn't run within the web
browser


i. Downloaded .exe file

ii.
Software that loads directly into memory from the web and runs as an
application

iii.
Any other software that loads into computer and doesn't run in HTTP or
runs using non-http



This is also posted on the WIKI at
http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_Section_as_Stand_Alone_Section






Gregg

------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
<http://trace.wisc.edu/ <http://trace.wisc.edu/> > FAX
608/262-8848

DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b

If Attachement is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
<http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>

<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>

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