Thread Subject: Re: FW: Latest controls access language
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: Dave Singer
Date: Tue, Oct 23 2007 9:10 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: FW: Latest controls access language"
- Previous message in thread: Karen Peltz Strauss: "Re: FW: Latest controls access language"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
At 10:38 -0400 23/10/07, Karen Peltz Strauss wrote:
>Once again, I want to emphasize that usability is just as much a part of
>Section 508 as accessibility is. Note the following section contained in
>the September 14 draft of our guidelines:
> 1.2 General Technical Requirements
> 1.2-A - Accessibility Configuration
>In complying with this subpart, each agency must activate accessibility
>features and configure products so that they are accessible to and usable by
>people with disabilities
>As noted during our calls, at present, access to captioning controls is
>unattainable because it is not usable - i.e. the access to these controls
>is so buried that no one can figure out how to activate it. This is
>exacerbated by the arrival of increasingly complex video programming
Appreciated. Though even those without accessibility needs struggle sometimes.
Reacting to Andrew, I know that 'easily' is not defined where it is
used, but the comparable in prominence later makes it clear that the
accessible user should struggle no harder than the rest of us, so I
don't think the intent is unclear.
I am quite happy to do endless tweaking and so on, or have people
tweak; but I rather suspect we're going to finish this best if we
get targeted comments of the kind "the re-write is not as clear as
the original on point XXXX; I recommend changing XXX to ZZZZ" or "we
still have an issue with QQQQ; I would like to add/remove PPPP", and
I feel that we are getting close, and don't want to see us fail to
finish. So, people, a plea from a fellow person on the factory
floor; where are you on the content, and expression of
a) the pre-re-write?
b) my offered re-write?
c) Andrew's offered re-write?
targetted comments to improve it will, I suspect, help us converge the best.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Andrew Kirkpatrick" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>To: "TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "Al
>Sonnenstrahl" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "Toby R. Silver"
>< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2007 5:34 PM
>Subject: Re: [teitac-video] FW: Latest controls access language (3:55pm ET)
>>> > And attempted re-write for clarity:
>>> > In products that receive or display analog or digital television, a
>>> > user needing access to an accessibility feature must be
>>> able to find
>>> > easily, and use easily, both the controls needed to enable that
>>> > accessibility feature, and other general controls that that
>>> user also
>>> > needs to be able to use. In at least one location, these
>>> controls must
>>> > be comparable in prominence to the controls needed to
>>> control volume,
>>> > or perform program selection, where the ability to control these
>>> > features is otherwise provided.
>> I know that the editorial group will not go for this since it has the
>> subjective phrases such as "find easily" and "comparable in prominence".
>> I think that these concepts are covered in the examples, which might
>> leave us with a hardware requirement for televisions and devices that
>> display analog and digital televisions:
>> Hardware products that receive or display analog or digital television
>> must provide controls needed for users to enable captioning and audio
>> I know that this not going to satisfy everyone's desires, but it is
>> testable and ensures that there is a way for users to accomplish what is
>> needed even if it isn't deemed as optimally usable as an approach that
>> might work for some but not all current devices.
>> And then we have the same examples:
>>> > For example:
>>> > 1. For captioning:
>>> > (a) A caption on/off on a TV remote comparable in
> >> prominence to the
>>> > volume control on that remote;
>>> > (b) Caption controls on the first menu that appear when
>>> > menus are displayed
>>> > 2. Audio equivalents to on-screen information and visual menu
>>> > selections 3. A tactile button to turn on audio
>>> equivalents; 4. A user
>>> > preferences dialog that is accessible and directly reachable from a
>>> > login screen.
- Next message in Thread: Andrew Kirkpatrick: "Re: FW: Latest controls access language"
- Previous message in Thread: Karen Peltz Strauss: "Re: FW: Latest controls access language"