Thread Subject: Re: Functional equivalency -- to extent possible

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: Marlaina Lieberg
Date: Wed, Jan 09 2008 8:55 PM

I know I've been a silent participant here, but I agree with what Karen is
saying. I guess I don't understand why we are creating what feels like
another out.


Warmly,

Marlaina

"An eye for an eye would make the whole world go blind"
Mohandas Ghandi
----- Original Message -----
From: "Karen Peltz Strauss" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Committee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 11:17 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Functional equivalency -- to extent possible


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.

Karen

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University