Thread Subject: Re: multiple disabilities
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: Peter Wallack
Date: Sun, Jul 22 2007 6:20 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Whitney Quesenbery: "Re: multiple disabilities"
- Previous message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: multiple disabilities"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
I concur with Gregg that this needs to be broken out as separate
provisions - besides the reporting issue, as currently written it could
be mis-interpreted that there must be least one mode which must address
*all* of the disabilities listed (thats what I did on my first read of
And if we go with this approach, don't we have to list which provisions
apply to each FPC? I'd like to see that done with text on each
provision listing which disability it pertains to, then each FPC could
be written like (using the Vision example):<br>
<p>The technical requirements identified as related to Vision must be
implemented in such a way that in
at least one mode, products provide comparable access, directly or with
assistive technology, without using vision.<br>
No thoughts on how to solve the conundrum though. I understand the
concept, but I can't envision any words that would make it measureable.<br>
- the other Peter<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Peter Wallack
Accessibility Program Director
Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
<pre wrap="">This is interesting approach. It covers part of the purpose of FPC. But it
does not cover the FPC role of requiring access to features or functions
where there is no technical requirement. Maybe a tweak of the intro could
cover this. (also we can add a few words for readability since it only
occurs once instead of repeated in each provision).
* "The technical requirements must be implemented or supplemented in
such a way that, in at least one mode, products provide comparable access,
either directly or when used with assistive technology:"
* Not sure that this solves the testability problem. We have trouble
with testability of current FPC but if they just become aspirations (only)
then there is no "omnibus test" and no "safety net to catch all the new
functionality or features that are not covered by technical provision".
* "without using vision" etc all need separate number (full provision
numbers) or you can't report against them.
So - good progress - but still have the big conundrum. How to handle the
roles the FPC were designed for.
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
<pre wrap="">-----Original Message-----
From: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = "> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = </a>
[<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ">mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = </a>] On Behalf Of
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 11:04 AM
To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] multiple disabilities
I have a proposal for how we could bring all of the
functional performance criteria into a single provision,
making the aspirational goals clear, but not leaving us with
an untestable requirement.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Section1.1_Updates#Proposal_for_an_">http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Section1.1_Updates#Proposal_for_an_</a>
I've also begun collecting this discussion on a comments page
attached to the July 18 draft.
Whitney Interactive Design
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = "> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = </a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.WQusability.com">www.WQusability.com</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.usabilityprofessionals.org">www.usabilityprofessionals.org</a>
"Warning: Objects in the calendar are closer than they appear."