Thread Subject: Re: intro for 8.1?
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: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Fri, Sep 21 2007 9:50 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Sean Hayes: "Re: intro for 8.1?"
- Previous message in thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: intro for 8.1?"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
> Chicken and egg:
> (a) is format, b is deliverable and/or document.
> So, if (format) can't store or represent, just as an example,
> text for images, then document (b) that uses images won't be
> able to be compliant for that requirement. so if a
> deliverable is represented as compliant, but is in a
> underlying format that won't support the ability to comply
> with a requirement, we know there is a problem somewhere.
I think that you are oversimplifying things. Formats may be able to be
extended, or aspects of formats where there are compliance issues may be
If I'm writing support information for a format, can I claim compliance
if someone could possibly extend the format to add the support for a
standard that is not met in the base state for the format? I think that
no is the appropriate answer, but don't want to create additional
hurdles for the developer or procurement person since what matters is
whether the product that is being purchased is compliant.
So what we have is this:
- a procurement officer can verify that the section 8 claims for a
product are accurate by checking if the format that the product is in
has compliance information in section 3 that is in line with the section
8 claims, except that the product may be able to extend the base
"format" or the product may not use parts of the format that are not
The section 8 format standards are completely covered by the section 3
software standards - this is extra effort without a meaningful return,
and it will either be ignored if not provided with the product VPAT or
add significantly to the confusion and work for procurement if it is.
That doesn't seem like enough to justify this extra set of standards.