Thread Subject: Re: Resolutions from today
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: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Fri, Oct 19 2007 9:10 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Sean Hayes: "Re: Resolutions from today"
- Previous message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Resolutions from today"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
I think section 3 can be met without an AT, an AT specific requirement
should not fall in section 3. I think what makes sense is this
requirement, where it fits is a question:
Products must demonstrate compliance with applicable technical
provisions of this standard, and represent how compatibility with
assistive technology is achieved, and used. We are basically saying
that a representation of the compatibility and use must be provided to
the purchaser, but that is a different thing than a "technical"
requirement. It may not even really be a "functional" performance
requirement either. This kind of thing falls in my view in the "how to"
acquire fully accessible products category, and may be something we as a
committee should consider as a recommendation for FAR inclusion. I just
don't think this really is a product maker burden--in the classic sense
of develop and sell process. Requiring the compatibility with AT is a
wide open requirement, and doesn't allow companies ownership of their
compliance. Requiring representation of compatibility is something that
can be used in the selection process however, and seems like a subpart A
kind of item to me.
Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303