Thread Subject: Re: Functional equivalency -- to extent possible
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: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Wed, Jan 09 2008 12:20 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Marlaina Lieberg: "Re: Functional equivalency -- to extent possible"
- Previous message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Functional equivalency -- to extent possible"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
I don't understand why we need this added language. We already have general defenses of undue burden, technical infeasibility and fundamental alteration. These, individually and collectively, say that if it is not possible to provide these access features on software or hardware media changes - whether because it is too expensive, too technically difficult or would cause too much of a change in the nature of the product - do not need to be provided. Why then do we need this added language in this section("as allowed by" or "to the extent possible given the constraints of the platform software or hardware displaying the media")? Clearly the existing defenses would take into account either of these. It does not seem to me that we should be creating a new standard only for this section.
- Next message in Thread: Marlaina Lieberg: "Re: Functional equivalency -- to extent possible"
- Previous message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Functional equivalency -- to extent possible"