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: Wed, Nov 01 2006 12:05 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Brett, Thomas F: "Re: "Content" in our subcommittee"
- Previous message in thread: Sean Hayes: "Re: "Content" in our subcommittee"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Jim Tobias wrote:
"1. The tool itself should be accessible to operate. (This would apply
to all software, not just content-producing software).
2. The content produced by the tool should be able to support all the
relevant features for accessible content.
And the following requirement should apply to the federal entity
producing the content:
3. The content should contain all the relevant features for accessible
Allen hoffman wrote:
"5. How should content be addressed better?
To address this fundamental gap, or obstacle, it is important to develop
specific EIT content production systems functionality standards first.
functionality might include the ability for content production
mechanisms to programmatically review user-developed content for missing
guide users to include accessibility attributes during the development
process by default, and allow interactive remediation for missing
attributes. I think these requirements would fall into the web or
software categories that exist now, or would fall into a new category
to content that might include content production mechanisms, and content
requirements together. new general content requirements might be based
existing web standards, and may include, text alternatives for non-text
elements, visual reading order is available to assistive technology,
and cell associations, alternate or additional representation of color,
etc. I feel that form elements are strictly web or software-based, and
via a plug-in (ahem PDF), should be tested based upon software
I am not certain Jim's summary includes some of mine. I just don't
think we can move into the vast content area without sufficient
technical support and not impose a huge cost. Without spell check,
spelling would go down for government documents. Without "access
check/repair" content accessibility will not improve quickly in my
opinion. At least most folks understand that they should spell words
correctly, but this is not the case, as far as I can tell, for the
majority of documents writers out there.
Department of Homeland Security
Office on Accessible systems & technology
- Next message in Thread: Brett, Thomas F: "Re: "Content" in our subcommittee"
- Previous message in Thread: Sean Hayes: "Re: "Content" in our subcommittee"