Thread Subject: Re: "Content" in our subcommittee
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: Jim Tobias
Date: Sat, Oct 28 2006 5:50 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Baquis David : "Re: "Content" in our subcommittee"
- Previous message in thread: Bailey Bruce: "Email Attachments (was RE: "Content" in oursubcommittee)"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Thanks for your answers, Andi and Peter.
I'm concerned that this subcommittee, which already has a huge membership
and mission, might be taking on too much to also deal with Content.
Especially when I hear the item almost as an afterthought: "We said we would
first review all of the existing provisions and then tackle content." I
know we don't want to create any more Subcommittees than we need, but we
also can't have Super-Subcommittees in which so much of the work is
centralized that it undercuts the whole idea of parcelling it out.
Here's a categorization scheme for the functions addressed by this
- Orientation: can a user discover what's in the app or on the page, and
what it's good for?
- Navigation: can a user get to all the controls and information ports?
- Operation: can a user manipulate the interface to deliver the intended
output or outcome?
- Content: can a user receive the intended output or outcome?
The first 3 are clearly within the 1194.21 and 1194.22 purview. But Content
may cross over into issues already under consideration by both the Telecom
and AV Subcommittees, and possibly others. Conversely, one of the Telecom
chairs has already raised a flag asking what to do about telecom software --
where does it fit? How do we want to answer that? I'm personally
comfortable welcoming all software issues, because they may be pretty
similar and may even live in the same external standard (as in HFES 200.4
for IVR, for example).
Whether or not TEITAC winds up using a more functional framework for the
Standards, we should keep it in the back of our minds, especially as the
workload of this subcommittee threatens to overload the ability of some
members to keep up and contribute.
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andi Snow-Weaver [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Friday, October 27, 2006 8:13 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] "Content" in our subcommittee
> Good discussion.
> Peter is right. We said we would first review all of the
> existing provisions and then tackle content. I expect we will
> encounter content issues as we discuss the exisitng software
> and Web provisions. Tom's posting had a good summary of
> e-mail issues. I have started a page on Content issues so
> that we can collect these as we go along.
- Next message in Thread: Baquis David : "Re: "Content" in our subcommittee"
- Previous message in Thread: Bailey Bruce: "Email Attachments (was RE: "Content" in oursubcommittee)"