Thread Subject: Re: AT Interoperability

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: Peter Korn
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 6:30 PM

Hi Debbie, Allen,

[adding General SC to the distribution]

I understand the sketch in your sketch/illustration. But we have a more
complex world, with multiple AT products filling the same niche
(multiple screen readers, multiple screen magnifiers). Any FPC language
that we use for this must take that into account. Also, especially with
FPC language around cognitive impairment, is the notion then that no IT
can be fully compliant until some cognitive AT exists on some platform
(at which time only IT on that platform even has the potential to be
fully compliant)?

Another concern I have is that this introduces a notion of "points" in
an evaluation. We discussed that issue quite some TEITAC meetings ago
in the context of offering guidance to agencies on what provisions were
important to which disabilities (allowing them to "score" a product
based on which disabilities they most cared about). I don't know if
this variant of "best meets scoring" differs significantly from that one
- in your sketch we would be stating that there is equal weight to
support by shipping AT products vs. accessibility services support by
the IT vs. accessibility services definition by the platform. I don't
see how to work that out in practice. Doesn't that, too, need to be the
purview of either the FAR or individual agencies?


As Andi suggests in another note in this thread, this should probably be
moved to the General SC. I've cc-ed that mailing list. We should fully
move this there, I think. Would folks replying please drop the Web &
Software e-mail alias from the To: field?


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.


> Yes, I would certainly consider a continuem that looks like what Alan
> proposes below. Assists agencies to determine "best meets" and addresses my
> concern that all efforts do not yield equal re3sults for the end user.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 12:16 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] AT Interoperability
>
>
> I have to disagree with this.
>
> I believe Section 508 does need to more clearly define what cooperation
> and interoperability between IT and AT means, when possible. Debbie
> Cook's point about this potentially being problematic if functional
> performance criteria are weakened significantly is valid also. I
> support creating more clear AT/IT interoperability requirements that are
> incremental, E.G. vendors can meet portions and those who meet more get
> more points at evaluation time, and then applying that principle to IT
> vendors for all IT products including platforms, software applications,
> and AT. This implies that, for example, platform vendors should be
> evaluated upon the availability of accessibility services, applications
> evaluated upon inclusion of accessibility services for At and from the
> platforms they support, and AT evaluated against usage of, or equivalent
> alternate provisioning of such services as an interoperability equation.
> Agencies need to consider their particular business needs for specific
> interoperability with specific AT as they must, but unclear requirements
> to "work together" are not measurable in my opinion, and won't get used
> at evaluation and selection time well.
>
> So, what gaps would fill this in for the web/software to provide a real
> continuum?
>
> 1. We need a standard to indicate the platforms must provide
> "accessibility services", that allow them to meet our interoperability
> requirements.
>
> 2. We should consider adding a software AT standard that requires use
> of such platform accessibility services when available, or equivalent
> facilitation of such information.
>
> Finally, when we say programmatically determinable, that may be AT, but
> does not have to be.
>
> Let me provide an example as illustration.
>
> Agency needs to procure an item which is a combination of platform and
> application:
>
> Vendor 1 meets platform standards, and application meets application
> requirements, but there is no At that meets requirements for this
> platform. The seller of the "solution" would then respond to all three
> sets of requirements. In this simplistic case would get 2 of 3. The
> product fails several functional performance criteria because the AT
> doesn't get them there.
>
> Vendor two fails platform standards, fails application requirements, but
> passes At requirements because some very specialized At exists to
> provide this level of access for one group via equivalent facilitation.
> They would get 1 of 3, but the FPC might be higher and evens out.
>
> Vendor three meets all standards and gets 3 of 3 and meets the FPC, so
> wins.
>
> This situation is exactly why the "best meets" language is in the
> standard in subpart A, do allow agencies to have some leeway to select
> the items that do in reality do what is needed, which is work for people
> with disabilities. I don't believe there is a simple way to
> specifically require that IT work with AT without some generally agreed
> upon foundation of roles and responsibilities in the chain.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
>
>
>

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