Thread Subject: Re: Proposal for a new User Preference Settings(Non-Visual)
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: David Poehlman
Date: Thu, Jul 26 2007 4:45 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Barrett, Don: "Re: Proposal for a new User Preference Settings(Non-Visual)"
- Previous message in thread: Katie Haritos-Shea: "Re: Proposal for a new User Preference Settings(Non-Visual)"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Katie and all,
The way around this is to use small incraments but keep them together. It
would be too easy for developpers and testers to fall into a "nonvisual"
only mode for instance. Since accessability is the goal and all
accessibility is equally important, we need an approach which provides this
as the fall out at the end.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Katie Haritos-Shea" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "David Poehlman" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Cc: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 6:52 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Proposal for a new User Preference
I too am not happy about seperating out visual from other disabilities, I
would like to see it covered globally.
As was brought up on the call today the current User Preferences provision
did not include tactile, aural and other sensory modes, and was pointed out
that it lived under the "If the Product has Visual Output or Display"
I brought up that I wanted to see tactile, aural and other sensory modes
covered in that provision, but that appeared not to have much support. It
was suggested that this kind of requirement is difficult enough to be
testable, therefore specific attributes to test against (ie font size, focus
cursor, etc)needed to be spelled out in the provision. A good proposal was
talked about that did do that.
That is the reason I took the action item to propose this provision.
Apparently the more specialized we get, the more testable it is assumed to
be. But I think there is a way around this. I just need to think it through
>From: David Poehlman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Sent: Jul 25, 2007 6:36 PM
>To: Katie Haritos-Shea < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, TEITAC Web/Software
>Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Proposal for a new User Preference
>First, I think "preferences" is the rong way round. We are not building an
>as you like it as I understand it.
>Second, Writing the standards to meet the goal of accessabiloity will gain
>any requirements for people not using a screen.
>Third, The more specialized we get, the less possible it is to blend needs
>toward providing for multiple disabilities.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Katie Haritos-Shea" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>To: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2007 3:59 PM
>Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Proposal for a new User Preference
>My action item was to produce a Proposal for a new User Preference Settings
>(Non-Visual) provision that is seperate from Visual Display setting as 3.2
>User Preferences is currently placed under
>Software & General Behavior Provisions
>If the Product has Visual Output or Display
>3.2 C User Preferences.
>This new proposed provision, discussed at the July 25 TEITAC Web/Software
>telecon, is meant/designed to cover [future] tactile, olfactory, cognitive,
>speech and aural settings (including user rendering and speech output), and
>possibly other sensory modality user-set preferences.
>Please speak up if you can think of other sensory modalities that could
>have relevance to E&IT. Think - scratch and sniff. Would that, scratch and
>sniff, have made sense (ha-ha) to anyone years ago? We need to be thinking
>this way. What if a program or an eZine forced an aroma upon you (as in a
>magazine perfume ad)?
>I think there are at least two issue that must be covered, stopping and
>controlling non-visual interactions. With that said, I realize that this
>proposal is very broad.
>Name: User Preferences (Non-Visual)
>Provision Text: If an application uses a mode of interaction other than
>visual (aural, taste, olfactory, tactile), that can affect human sensory
>functions, settings shall be provided that allow the user to stop and
>control those functions, or, provides a mode that utilizes the platform
>settings for control of those functions.
>3.2 C User Preferences would be renamed to 3.2 C User Preferences (Visual).
>I realize that this may seem way-out-there, but considering the rapidly
>advancing state of voice and other biometric identifier technologies (due
>security concerns and therefore have available R&D funding), the
>that other sensory modalities will be utilized to "grab" the attention of
>consumers is a very real.
>Taste and Smell Disorders: http://www.anosmiafoundation.org/smell.shtml
>* katie *
>Section 508 Technical Policy Analyst
>People may forget exactly what it was that you said or did,
>but they will never forget how you made them feel.......
- Next message in Thread: Barrett, Don: "Re: Proposal for a new User Preference Settings(Non-Visual)"
- Previous message in Thread: Katie Haritos-Shea: "Re: Proposal for a new User Preference Settings(Non-Visual)"