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: Peter Korn
Date: Sat, Sep 22 2007 10:40 AM

Hi Sean,

I think it is true that today few if any U.S. Federal Government
agencies "procure" formats. But we have certainly seen several U.S.
States looking to formally standardize on document formats (cf.
Massachusetts). Likewise we have seen this in a number of European
countries. And I believe the U.S. Library of Congress and other
archiving organizations have been looking at like standardization.

As standardization is different from procurement, it may be that the
vehicle of Section 508 is not the right vehicle for this. But it seems
clear to me that an enumeration of the accessibility information that
must be "preservable" in/with a document format is an entirely
appropriate thing to write down, so that organizations that are looking
to standardize on some number of document formats know what they must
look for to ensure accessibility information is preservable in that format.

And I think this subcommittee has done a very nice job of doing that in
this collection of provisions.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> Sorry, I was working from the Sept 3 draft.
>
> One logical problem, if the primary leverage applied by agencies is procurement, is that the agency does not typically procure formats. It procures tools that generate and consume data encoded in those formats or maybe data encoded in formats.
>
> The content rules might be replaced by a blanket clause:
> "Agencies and their employees and agents must ensure electronic information is developed and maintained such that any receiving party can use software to access that information in a manner which complies with the software provisions."
>
> Sean Hayes
> Incubation Lab
> Accessibility Business Unit
> Microsoft
>
> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
> Sent: 22 September 2007 13:13
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] intro for 8.1?
>
> Thanks.
>
> The first numbers you cite -- are those the 8.1 and 8.2 provisions? So "1"
> is actually 8.1-A in the September 14 draft?
>
> If that's the case, I still argue that although in a perfect world only the
> final product should need evaluation, we are so far from that perfect world
> that upstream provisions are still necessary. At the agency level they
> prevent mischief during use, and at the industry level they support the
> development and marketing of better tools. I don't see how they're overly
> burdensome to either party. For example, we're not insisting that agencies
> purchase tools that use the *most* accessible formats, nor are we imposing
> oversight on format development itself.
>
> If there were no lead paint, there would be no lead painted toys.
>
> ***
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> skype jimtobias
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sean Hayes [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Saturday, September 22, 2007 7:53 AM
>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] intro for 8.1?
>>
>> 1 - covered by 3C
>>
>> 2 - covered by 6 A,B&C
>>
>> 4 - covered by 3K
>>
>> 5,6 & 7 - covered by 3N
>>
>> 8 - covered by 3M
>>
>> 9 - covered by 3C
>>
>> 10 - covered by a combination of 3N and 3C.
>>
>> Sean Hayes
>> Incubation Lab
>> Accessibility Business Unit
>> Microsoft
>>
>> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
>> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
>> Of Jim Tobias
>> Sent: 22 September 2007 12:42
>> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] intro for 8.1?
>>
>> Sorry -- can you point to the specific provision(s) that
>> would have the effect you claim? I'm not seeing it.
>>
>> ***
>> Jim Tobias
>> Inclusive Technologies
>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
>> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
>> skype jimtobias
>>
>>
>>

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