Thread Subject: Re: Authoring tools with no user interface

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: Judy Brewer
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 12:10 AM

Norm,

At 10:34 AM 8/9/2007 -0400, Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC wrote:
>
>We should remove the qualifiers "for each accessible content format
>supported" as all content covers all scenarios,

I believe that this was added to account for situations where for instance
the output might be something other than electronic content, for instance,
a printed format. Sean, didn't this come from you, and if so can you remind us?

>"with a user interface" as then you have to qualify what a user interface
>is or is not,

This one is under discussion.

>and delete the reference to _file_ templates entirely. Templates are not
>software. A templated HTML form is not software or web-based information -
>yet(1 see below). We should certainly expect vendors to provide file
>templates that already include accessibility information where possible
>but we should be focusing on their _tool's_ ability to create and keep
>that information, not on the _file_ itself.

Not sure where you're seeing the emphasis on the file itself. The proposed
provision does not include "file" and its emphasis is facilitating the
production of accessible content through provision of accessible templates
and certain types of pre-authored content:
"Authoring tools which provide pre-authored content, or templates to
facilitate production of content, must provide at least one version that
meets applicable Section 508 provisions."

>Please consider that I can use many different editors on the same file
>template - and do today. And where my coworkers prefer Dreamweaver or some
>other tool, I prefer BASH shell script editing or VIM text editor (let the
>flame wars begin) that has macros for many of the same functions and in
>our current definition would fit the definition of an authoring tool.

Can you suggest language that would be more encompassing of these types of
macros and that would be feasible and appropriate to add to, or amend, the
existing language?

Thanks,

- Judy

>
>
>Regards,
>
>
>
>Norman B. Robinson
>Section 508 Coordinator
>IT Governance, US Postal Service
>phone: 202.268.8246
>(1) We should address file formats as file formats and not some umbrella
>for web-based information. We haven't even gained agreement amongst
>ourselves and addressed valid or well-formed HTML! That logically will
>fall into software (flash anyone? SVG? PDF?) at some point. We should
>focus on what specific techniques or coding is required for accessibility
>in the file format in consideration of where we are failing to provide
>accessibility and need it mandated (e.g., being specific on alt text for
>images is an obvious need; how do we clarify that for SVG or any other
>format?)
>
>

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University