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: Fratkin, Mike
Date: Wed, Nov 01 2006 7:10 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: "Content" in our subcommittee"
- Previous message in thread: Jonathan Avila: "Re: "Content" in our subcommittee"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Allen Hoffman wrote:
"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."
I concur completely with Allen that it makes no sense to be given
inaccessible information whether it is from an e-mail or from a tool. It
may have been the intent originally of Section 508 to only address the
delivery mechanism, but the content should be considered at this time.
It seems to make little sense to spend resources to test an interface
for a viewer, the tool to produce electronic forms, the player or
learning management system for electronic learning, and terminal
emulators that display mainframe applications and then ignore the
content which is typically the most important element. The Federal
Government is currently struggling with electronic courseware that is
delivered by multiple sources, electronic forms produced by a variety of
tools and tools that produce PDF documents on the fly from mainframe
databases. All of this content from the various sources seems to be
analogous to what is developed by web tools and then delivered by
browsers. Content is becoming a very significant aspect of electronic
information and needs to be considered going forward.
- Next message in Thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: "Content" in our subcommittee"
- Previous message in Thread: Jonathan Avila: "Re: "Content" in our subcommittee"