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: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Wed, Aug 15 2007 2:20 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Baker, Robert C.: "Re: AT Interoperability"
- Previous message in thread: Randy Marsden: "Re: AT interoperability"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Peter Korn wrote:
"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
By increasing the FPC(s), and updating our technical requirements we
will make the set of items that are fully conforming far smaller in the
beginning, but hopefully that will again grow larger over time. This
will mean that the "most compliant" item is to be selected and this is
often an agency evaluation issue, yes.
Peter Korn continues:
"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?"
yes, i think the actual procedure recommended would be at FAR time. I
think expansion of how "most compliant" is documented and evaluated
could possibly be considered that would be one way to get there.