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: Randy Marsden
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 8:05 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: AT Interoperability"
- Previous message in thread: Peter Korn: "Re: AT Interoperability"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Thank you Andi. That is what I recall as well. I remember going
over these issues in a special break-out group and working out
language that both IT and AT agreed with (included in your link). I
agree now, as I did then, with that language. At this moment, I
don't see why what is being discussed in the General SC regarding the
FPC should cause that language to be changed.
On Aug 14, 2007, at 4:17 PM, Andi Snow-Weaver wrote:
> This discussion has taken a hard left turn away from the specific AT
> interoperability provision to the bigger issue of functional
> I will remind everyone that the proposed AT interoperability was
> between AT and IT vendors who are the ones that ultimately have to
> this problem and has been agreed to since sometime in April I
> think. And it
> is much stronger than the vague requirement for object information
> to be
> programmatically exposed that is in the current (2001) 508
> standard. So
> with just this one provision, we can improve things over the current
> situation even if we keep the 2001 wording for the functional
> This issue is being debated at length in the general subcommittee
> and they
> have scheduled another call tomorrow to continue looking for a
> This discussion needs to be happening on the general subcommittee
> list to ensure that everyone's point of view is considered.