Thread Subject: Re: Document vs electronic document
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: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 11:10 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Document vs electronic document"
- Previous message in thread: Peter Korn: "Re: Document vs electronic document"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
In the spirit of trying to keep the verbosity down, is this really
necessary? These are standards for electronic and information
technology - will people really be confused if we just say document?
AWK
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:11 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Document vs electronic document
>
> To address Gregg's concern, I have changed all occurrences of
> "document" to "electronic document".
>
> To Peter's concern, what is the objective you're trying to
> achieve? I don't think we want to make it so that all text
> documents will pass. If someone creates a table in a text
> file by using a monospaced font, lining things up in columns,
> and drawing cell borders with ASCII characters, that should not pass.
>
> Andi
>
>
>
>
>
> Peter Korn
>
> <Peter.Korn@Sun.C
>
> OM>
> To
> Sent by: TEITAC Web/Software
> Subcommittee
> teitac-websoftwar
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> itac.org
> cc
>
>
>
> Subject
> 08/14/2007 10:57 Re:
> [teitac-websoftware] Document
> AM vs electronic
> document
>
>
>
>
> Please respond to
>
> TEITAC
>
> Web/Software
>
> Subcommittee
>
> <teitac-websoftwa
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> g>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Gregg, Andi,
>
> I'm also concerned about how this language would apply to
> "simple document formats" (e.g. a '.txt' file). I think we
> could specify this for something like a "document content
> format", which implies a level of richness and functionality.
> But not for all documents.
>
> Perhaps if we had a definition of "document" that expressed
> this richness, then maybe language like this could work.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
> > In all the provisions that are to apply only to electronic
> documents -
> > we should say so to avoid confusion (and consternation).
> >
> > For example - it is unclear how to do this in printed documents.
> >
> > The human language of each passage or phrase in Web pages
> or documents
> > can be programmatically determined.
> >
> >
> > 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: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Document vs electronic document"
- Previous message in Thread: Peter Korn: "Re: Document vs electronic document"
WebAIM is an initiative of:
