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: Sean Hayes
Date: Mon, Sep 24 2007 9:55 AM

No the situation is not the same. Typically AT does not access content formats directly (although this might be the case for example for Braille encoded ASCII), it is typically mediated through an software application.

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 Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: 24 September 2007 16:39
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] intro for 8.1?

This is similar to the "accessibility supported" concept in WCAG.

In WCAG however the technologies must actually be supported by at least some
AT.

In 508 as written - (as I understand it) all that is required is that there
be an API for the format to pass 508. There does not have to be any AT that
actually works with the Format.

1) do I understand this correctly?
2) do we want to rewrite slightly so that there has to be actual AT that
works with the format?

If I misunderstood and AT is required we should put a statement somewhere to
make it clear since it is ambiguous and some feel that AT is not required.

thanks


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Hoffman, Allen
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 7:16 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] intro for 8.1?
>
> Procurement applies to information and data.
> information and data are delivered in some format.
>
> So, for example, I buy a credit reporting service which
> provides daily reports in IDF (inaccessible document format),
> and another vendor offers that information in (adf),
> accessible document format. Now, you might infer section 3
> applies, but almost nobody will in the acquisition side of
> things. Without this being an explicitly described item it
> will, and has gotten lost and overlooked.
>
> I think there certainly may be some scoping tweaking that
> would help, but as one who as strived desperately over the
> past many years to improve the accessibility of content,
> delivered by various software mechanisms, I can say this link
> is what is missing and sorely requires some strong mechanism
> to fix it. Much of the Access-Board's initial question of
> how does Section 508 apply to "content" is based around
> exactly this problem in the end. We have addressed the
> problem only in the surface fashion if we leave out the
> format portion, and history demonstrates that that approach
> doesn't work. if there is an interim mechanism we can use
> I'd be all for exploring it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Sean Hayes
> Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 5:25 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] intro for 8.1?
>
> Peter, I think your observations are valid in the context of
> office documents, but when we examine the wider scope of what
> the term "content format" covers I think we find problems.
>
> It might be a valid tactic for an agency trying to meet 508
> to voluntarily reduce their complexity burden by
> standardising on a specific set of technologies like OS, AT
> and office document types, however as you say that is out of
> the scope of 508. And even if so the agency would still need
> to be able to interoperate with content and systems outside
> of their control, as well as ensuring that the content which
> is created actually uses the accessibility features.
>
> I agree that the group has done some good work on identifying
> the kind of information software needs to be able to obtain
> when using a content format in order to meet the operational
> provisions, but as I have already stated, it is not always
> appropriate to include that information directly in the
> content itself.
>
> I'm not necessarily against recording the groups guidance
> somewhere but I think there are a number of problems with
> recording it as specific provisions within 508.
>
> For one, there is the harmonisation problem, no other
> international standard has such provisions (possibly for the
> reasons I outline below), and that procurement applies to
> software and not content formats.
>
> Then there is the issue that federal agencies between them
> record terabytes of information each year, including digital
> photographs; satellite imagery; cctv traffic, security, and
> other video; medical scans; geographical information and so
> on. These are all recorded in content formats which would not
> meet the proposed provisions on their own. Even if the
> agencies could employ the armies of operators it would
> require to create the descriptions, captions and annotations
> to make this information accessible; for practical, legal and
> forensic reasons, any such additional information would
> likely be entered into a media management database of some
> sort, not by altering the original content formats.
>
> The proposed content rules while applicable in some specific
> cases, such as office document creation, do not encompass
> situations where the information is distributed over a set of
> content formats, such as HTML and PNG, or DV and timed text
> files. They also do not accommodate situations where data
> must necessarily live in an inaccessible format for some
> period and would be made accessible by later processing, like
> capturing a digital photograph.
>
> So since the content provisions are already captured in a
> more general way by the provisions on software, and do not
> create the same operational constraints, I think we might be
> able to move the proposed content provisions into notes or
> guidance materials for the specific software provisions they
> relate to.
>
> We also need to think about how the software rules apply to
> tools which are used in the conversion of inaccessible
> recorded media such as photographs and video, we may need to
> craft some specific exceptions otherwise we may inadvertently
> prevent the agencies from procuring tools such as Photoshop
> which are commonly used in the process of making such
> materials accessible.
>
> 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 Peter Korn
> Sent: 22 September 2007 17:37
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] intro for 8.1?
>
> 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