Thread Subject: Re: AT interoperability

From: Jessica M. Brodey
Date: Wed, Aug 15 2007 7:35 AM

• 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: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: AT Interoperability"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Andi:

I couldn't agree more. We worked at length with IT to develop that
proposal, and we believe it will greatly improve interoperability in the
future.

>From our perspective, the functional performance criteria should set the bar
for the end results (e.g., one mode that provides access without vision
either on its own or through the use of AT). We are not set on one phrase
to convey that concept - we are still open to conveying that message either
through the old phrasing or new language. The technical provisions should
help ensure that these end results are achieved. With that being said, the
technical standards do not set forth every step necessary for AT and IT to
work together. It is possible to follow every provision and for AT & IT not
to work together. The FPC therefore focus on the result, the technical
standards set forth the components that MUST be done to reach the end
result, and the rest is for IT and AT to work out together on a case-by-case
basis. Is this ideal? No - we would love to be able to point to a
standard(s) and say "if you do this, interoperability will happen." We
don't have that yet - perhaps someday soon we will. Our goal is to ensure
that we do not take a step backward from existing regulation, and continue
to require actual compatibility for the products the federal government
purchases at least to the same degree required today.

Jessica
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Snow-Weaver
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2007 6:18 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] AT interoperability


This discussion has taken a hard left turn away from the specific AT
interoperability provision to the bigger issue of functional performance.

I will remind everyone that the proposed AT interoperability was developed
between AT and IT vendors who are the ones that ultimately have to solve
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 performance
criteria.

This issue is being debated at length in the general subcommittee and they
have scheduled another call tomorrow to continue looking for a solution.
This discussion needs to be happening on the general subcommittee mailing
list to ensure that everyone's point of view is considered.

Andi

• Next message in Thread: Peter Korn: "Re: AT Interoperability"
• Previous message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: AT Interoperability"