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 9:45 AM

Sean,

Thanks for the further elaboration on this.

I think the language which we developed to address that, "...for each
accessible content format supported" works fine, and that we should keep it.

- Judy

At 10:40 AM 8/14/2007 +0100, Sean Hayes wrote:
><quote Norm>
>We should remove the qualifiers "for each accessible content format
>supported" as all content covers all scenarios,
></quote Norm>
>
><quote Judy>
>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?
></quote Judy>
>
>Yes the problem here is that authoring systems often provide the ability
>to export into formats which are not able to pass all the content requirements.
>Some examples: Creating a FAX document for transmission. Creating an image
>of the content to include in an advertisement. Creating a thumbnail for
>use as a web preview. Saving as simple text to migrate content between
>incompatible systems.
>
>If we prevent authoring tools from supporting these scenarios, this will
>cause a lot of problems in the market. On the other hand we do want to
>make sure that where the tool is saving to a format that can pass the
>provisions, the necessary information is added appropriately.
>
>I'm not sure what the right language is here, but that is my concern.
>
>Sean Hayes
>Incubation Lab
>Accessibility Business Unit
>Microsoft
>
>
>
>

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