Thread Subject: Re: Straw Poll for Provisions
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: Debbie Cook
Date: Fri, Sep 28 2007 2:20 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Straw Poll"
- Previous message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Straw Poll for Provisions"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
It would be problematic for the Closed Functionality group if you do this
quite yet. We are not proposing to change any words on paper, but are
proposing to add a sentence in various provisions with respect to
application of the standard to closed functionality based on our top to
bottom review of the standards. I'm hoping we'll finish most of those
recommendations next week and by the 12th at latest. They impact provisions
in section 3 so will need to be worked through with Software. So my concern
is how we define "stable."
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC Committee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Friday, September 28, 2007 1:09 PM
Subject: [teitac-committee] Straw Poll for Provisions
Mike and I have discussed setting up a straw poll for TEITAC members to
indicate their positions on current provisions. The purpose is to help us
build the agenda for the upcoming plenary conference calls and the November
We will only include provisions for which there is a single, stable draft.
For each such provision, there will be 2 options: "I consent to this
provision" and "I do not consent to this provision".
This note is to ask if you have any strong objections to such a poll.
Please let us (and each other) know. Thanks.