Thread Subject: Re: AT Interoperability
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: Peter Korn
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 2:00 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Peter Korn: "Re: AT Interoperability"
- Previous message in thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: AT Interoperability"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
I'm sorry, but I don't understand what *specifically* you are recommending.
Right now the draft FPC is not testable, and agencies have told us they
don't even try to test it. If we go back to the original FPC which says
"support for AT", then we have something we can test, and with the "AT
Interoperability" provision, we have a specific testable set of
behaviors for IT to do.
Would that satisfy you?
Or, when you say "leave it the way it current is", you mean have no AT
Interoperability provision at all (no enumeration of what IT must
provide at a technical level to AT)?
Or, do you mean we have the current draft FPC, but make it clear that it
is not intended to be a testable provision.
We are trying very hard to come to a close on draft language to send to
the Access Board. In order to move the discussion forward, we need to
be discussing *specific* language suggestions. Otherwise we get nowhere.
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> That was not the point I was making (but nice try) :-)
> My point is that a technical interoperability standard doesn't exist
> today. And yet we are trying to come up with something that is
> "testable" for interoperability in Section 508. In my opinion, you
> can't have one without the other. That's why we are all having such
> difficulty with this issue.
> My suggestion for something better is that until a generally accepted
> technical standard exists, leave it the way it currently is: simply
> state that IT should work with AT. Is that vague? Yes. Will it
> require interpretation at the agency level? Yes. Is that anything
> new? No.
> On Aug 14, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Peter Korn wrote:
>> Hi Randy,
>> The "consensus" I was referring to was that we weren't going to require
>> AT to support an API, or make any other explicit requirements on AT in
>> Section 508. This was something I understood was particularly important
>> to ATIA. What I see you saying now, below, is that you hope to be able
>> to change the wording of Section 508 to place a requirement on AT (you
>> wrote: 'Someday, I hope we will be able to change the wording of Section
>> 508 to say something like "AT and IT products must conform to the
>> ABC123XXX interoperability standard".'). Doing that would essentially
>> mean that AT that didn't conform to your theoretical ABC123XXX
>> interoperability standard could NOT be acquired by agencies under 508.