Thread Subject: Re: intro for 8.1?

Note

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: Jim Tobias
Date: Thu, Sep 20 2007 1:35 PM

I don't see why the entire format info would have to be in a VPAT if it's a
public, standard format used by the authoring tool in a standard way. If
the tool deviates from the format in any important way that would have to be
documented.

Am I missing something?

***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 2:39 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] intro for 8.1?
>
> Point taken.
> Let me consider a bit and will post with a walk through of
> how this can work.
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 2:36 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] intro for 8.1?
>
> This seems like a lot of additional overhead for a mere sanity check.
> I'm envisioning a lot of confusion for procurement people
> when they receive a 16 page VPAT for a product that outputs
> in 5 different formats and needs to include information about
> the capabilities of the format for each. Do you really
> expect that these people will cross-reference the product
> section 3 VPAT information against the various section 8
> items for the format because it might reveal that the product
> VPAT author is declaring something that they shouldn't?
>
> AWK
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > Hoffman, Allen
> > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:07 PM
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] intro for 8.1?
> >
> > Look at it as a sanity check.
> > If you state that, for example, you meet the language
> requirement in
> > 3, but select a format that doesn't include that capacity,
> something
> > is wrong.
> >
> >
> >
> > Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > Andrew Kirkpatrick
> > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 1:04 PM
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] intro for 8.1?
> >
> > Allen,
> >
> > You state "When determining the most accessible product
> from a set of
> > more than one, the format information is provided in can
> determine if
> > other requirements can be met or not" but just because a format
> > includes support for a particular standard it doesn't mean that the
> > product that uses that format takes advantage of that support.
> >
> > How do you envision the support for the content formats
> being defined?
> > Does each content format have a VPAT? If so, who writes it?
> >
> > Part of my concern with the implementation of this section
> is that the
>
> > product is already reporting on how they support standards that
> > overlap with the content format items - I'm not sure that it will
> > actually help in procurement decisions since the product
> needs to meet
>
> > the section 3 standards, and the section 8 standards not only don't
> > bring anything new to the picture but they are not necessarily
> > representative of the accessibility in the specific product.
> >
> > AWK
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > > Hoffman, Allen
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2007 11:43 AM
> > > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] intro for 8.1?
> > >
> > > All:
> > >
> > > Several people have raised questions related to how
> > provisions in 8.1
> > > relate to other sections. I think I'd like to propose an
> update to
> > > the draft for 09/14 to include some intro materials to
> > alleviate this
> > > concern, as it is obvious some connection is needed to make this
> > > self-evident.
> > >
> > > So:
> > >
> > > Sections 3 and 6 above require that information delivered must be
> > > presented meeting accessibility requirements. To
> accomplish this,
> > > information storage formats must allow for inclusion of certain
> > > accessibility related attributes and/or functionalities.
> > This section
> >
> > > describes the functional accessibility requirements for
> > such formats.
> > > When determining the most accessible product from a set of
> > more than
> > > one, the format information is provided in can determine if other
> > > requirements can be met or not, and can be an important
> > factor in the
> > > final determination. Note:
> > > Formats which do not include some functionalities such as
> > the ability
> > > to represent synchronized media, would not be subject to that
> > > provision.
> > >
> > >
> > >

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University