Thread Subject: Re: Move 3.4A to 3.2 (probably after B)
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: Wed, Jul 18 2007 7:15 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: Barrett, Don: "Re: Move 3.4A to 3.2 (probably after B)"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Let me rephrase this as my brain absorbed it.
Since this applies to closed, where the exposure of the focus to AT
would not be possible, the entire provision would not apply.
I can go with that and either suggest:
Keep these both separate to be symmetric, converge software/web to one
provision (two pieces), or adjust the language in the provision to
acknowledge that in closed items the AT exposure would not be required.
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: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 7:08 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Move 3.4A to 3.2 (probably after B)
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.
Don
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
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
together.
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
-- ------------------------------
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: Barrett, Don: "Re: Move 3.4A to 3.2 (probably after B)"
WebAIM is an initiative of:
