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: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Tue, Jul 24 2007 7:20 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: None
- Previous message in thread: Judy Brewer: "Re: multiple disabilities"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
What I read here is that:
Deaf/blind may be feasible as an addition. if so, we need to do a full
analysis of the technical standards with real-world items to see if we
have adequate standards to achieve that goal. if so, then we also need
to prepare "discussion" language that acts as intro, and in Gregg's
terms, "sufficient techniques" discussion supplemental info. We'd also
need economic impact information to go with the new FPC. Personally I'd
like to work with folks to analyze if we can add
low-vision/hard-of-hearing as that is a very large multiple condition we
haven't addressed yet.
Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 9:09 AM
To: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] multiple disabilities
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter
> Sent: Saturday, July 21, 2007 11:53 PM
> To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] multiple disabilities
> Trace has done a lot of excellent research on ways of providing access
> to folks with multiple disabilities. And certainly with support for
> Braille we can address the needs of the deaf-blind. But do we truly
> have an understanding of how to deal with every combination of sensory
> (and cognitive) disability? Is there AT in existence (on *any*
> platform) that covers every such combination.
> At the TEITAC meeting this past week, there was discussion about the
> FPC section being aspirational (in addition to discussion about the
> definition text of "comparable access"
> being aspirational). I don't mind text in an aspirational section
> that says that we "should strive to provide access to persons that
> have any one or a combination of functional limitations listed below".
> But I frankly don't see how we can have a "must" here without the
> user-tested existence of AT solutions that cover every possible
> limitation combination.
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> > One idea suggested for a leader or something to the FPC section.
> > Forwardng to EWG as well.
> > Products and services covered by this part must provide access to
> > persons that have any one or a combination of functional
> > listed below.
> > 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/_>_ 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://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>__
> > --
- Next message in Thread: None
- Previous message in Thread: Judy Brewer: "Re: multiple disabilities"