Thread Subject: Re: Move 3.4A to 3.2 (probably after B)
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, Jul 18 2007 5:10 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: Move 3.4A to 3.2 (probably after B)"
- Previous message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Move 3.4A to 3.2 (probably after B)"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
If this was only a provision in the software section, then that wouldn't
be an issue. We would have a different, non-AT requirement for closed
products; that way, when visual and at focus could be tested together,
they would be -- when not applicable, the standard wouldn't apply.
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 1:20 AM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Move 3.4A to 3.2 (probably after B)
I see your point Allen. But we have a problem when they are joined
Only one would be required and possible on closed products. Yet you
would fail this provision since they are both lumped together.
Suggest that they be separated so that closed products can conform to
those provisions is has to without failing them because they are coupled
with AT provision which they cannot by definition meet.
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
- Next message in Thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: Move 3.4A to 3.2 (probably after B)"
- Previous message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Move 3.4A to 3.2 (probably after B)"