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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Aug 14 2007 11:10 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: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: AT Interoperability"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
The FPC discussion should be in general.
But the discussion here is about the AT Interoperability technical
provisions and I don't think those should be moved to general.
If both are being discussed on this thread - then lets take the FPC to
general and the AT Interop in SoftWeb.
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Peter Korn
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 7:10 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee; TEITAC General
> Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] AT Interoperability
> 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?
> 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
> > requirements.
> > 2. We should consider adding a software AT standard that
> requires use
> > of such platform accessibility services when available, or
> > 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
> > 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
> > but passes At requirements because some very specialized At
> exists to
> > provide this level of access for one group via equivalent
> > 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