Thread Subject: Re: "Content" in our subcommittee
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: Tue, Oct 31 2006 6:45 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Jonathan Avila: "Re: "Content" in our subcommittee"
- Previous message in thread: Brett, Thomas F: "Re: "Content" in our subcommittee"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Jonathan Avila wrote:
"My comments - I believe the current law is very clear that all of this
is covered, all means of E&IT regardless of how it is stored. The real
question is what can be enforced. Currently only E&IT that is procured
is enforced to these requirements. Thus, the obligation is already
there to ensure every type of E&IT meet the standards. Do we want to
increase the scope of enforcement?"
I feel enforceability is not within the scope of the TEITAC mission or
authority. Also, from the Federal perspective, the analogy we use is
the speed-limit. Speed limits are only enforceable when the enforcers
are on the scene in one way or another, it doesn't mean you are allowed
to speed when nobody is watching. Many Federal Departments and agencies
address other-than--procured EIT by internal policies and procedures,
but you are right that content would definitely most likely fall into
the developed category far more than acquired EIT. I wonder if the
content portion of software/web/content needs some more solid
connectivity with the subpart-a group, as these issues are cross
boundary all around. If subpart-a concludes content isn't in the scope,
then software/web/content produces usable standards for content, we
might be at odds.
The entire" is content included" debate has people with considerable
knowledge and experience in the field really split from my experience.
Personally I can't see how content is not included, but well informed
others concluded it was not the intent to include content, but rather
the delivery mechanisms. I just never thought that made a lot of sense
to require that you be given inaccessible information--what would be the
point of doing so.
- Next message in Thread: Jonathan Avila: "Re: "Content" in our subcommittee"
- Previous message in Thread: Brett, Thomas F: "Re: "Content" in our subcommittee"