Thread Subject: Re: Clarification on accessible content regardless of medium

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: Jim Tobias
Date: Thu, Feb 14 2008 7:30 AM

I think you're right, Allen, about the "known" and "unknown"
recipients. Mike and I raised this in our AB meeting; Bruce,
please feel free to chime in to make sure we're actually addressing
the right concerns here.

The known, intra-agency recipients are one thing. There may also be unknown
intra-agency
recipients, say if someone forwards email with an attachment. The original
sender is not made aware of this, and did not expect it. As far as I can
see, there are 2 intra-agency remedies: make all content accessible all the
time, or support recipients' ad hoc requests for accessible versions. (This
sort of mingles 504 and 508.) Perhaps there is a middle solution that
requires original content to be accessible if the creator has a "reasonable
expectation" that it will be shared to unknown recipients. Some may prefer
to turn that around: a creator does not need to make the original content
accessible if there is a reasonable expectation that it will not be shared
beyond known recipients none of whom need an accessible version, nor with
the general
public.

***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 8:19 AM
> To: TEITAC Committee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Clarification on accessible
> contentregardlessof medium
>
> Gregg wrote:
> 1) sent out to people
> 2) posted on the Web
> 3) posted to a server for people to access (does anyone post
> to any servers now besides web servers?
>
> The answer to 3 is yes, share-drives are a very widely used
> form, and don't use "web" http or variants of that protocol,
> but either something like NFS, or CIFS. does it matter what
> transport mechanism is used? I think not. I think the point
> is that this does raise the bar for content from "just web",
> and this was discussed a lot in plenary, and in
> subcommittees. The only boundaries I think I'd place on
> this, and this is only from purely practical perspective, is
> that documents not finished, or not distributed to a set of
> people where the sender does not know about specific
> accessibility needs, are not covered. The point is that when
> you know accessibility needs of a recipient you need to take
> care of that need individually as a matter of appropriate
> interaction with a coworker, while when sending a piece of
> content to an audience where you don't know that level of
> specific accessibility needs, indicates that the basic
> minimum 508 requirements must be taken care of. Just as 508
> applies to procure, "develop", 508 is applicable to more than
> just content purchased. The specific enforcement mechanisms
> for this are not the same, but the standard sets the bar for
> both situations.
>
> Yes this does raise the bar officially, but depending upon
> the transport mechanism just narrows this too much.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 4:45 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Committee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Clarification on accessible
> content regardlessof medium
>
> That was almost what I was trying to get to.
>
> That this would only apply to things that were
> 1) sent out to people
> 2) posted on the Web
> 3) posted to a server for people to access (does anyone post
> to any servers now besides web servers?
>
> What else would we want to cover? (Not people's personal
> docs. Not things that are just stored away for archive. )
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto:teitac-committee- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > Whitney Quesenbery
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 3:36 PM
> > To: TEITAC Committee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Clarification on accessible content
> > regardlessof medium
> >
> > Or "made available in an archive" - since "online" would
> lead us back
> > to the original problem of thinking this only applied to the web.
> >
> > And maybe we should say "regardless of medium" or include note that
> > this includes CD, DVD, etc, in addition to Web.
> >
> > W
> >
> > At 04:33 PM 2/13/2008, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> >
> > >How about changing "archived" to "made available online".
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >Gregg
> > > -- ------------------------------
> > >Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > > > Whitney Quesenbery
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 3:29 PM
> > > > To: TEITAC Committee
> > > > Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Clarification on accessible
> > > > content regardlessof medium
> > > >
> > > > I wonder if this really means "made available in an archive"
> > > > - such as the collections of articles many agencies
> post online.
> > > > It's not really "distributed" but can be "pulled"
> > > >
> > > > At 03:56 PM 2/13/2008, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >I like your new wording but would suggest we remove the word
> ARCHIVE.
> > > > >
> > > > >If not distributed - I don't think it needs to be accessible.
> > > > >And there are a million logs, reports, and other
> things that are
> > > > generated
> > > > >by computers and archived and never looked at. If pulled
> > > > from archive - then it should
> > > > >be made accessible. If distributed to people, it should be
> > > > accessible.
> > > > >But not if just archived. Nice if it is - but not the
> > > > place to spend
> > > > >resources I don't believe since there is so much
> generated today
> > > > >automatically.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >Gregg
> > > > > -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > > > > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> > > > Behalf Of Jim
> > > > > > Tobias
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 2:39 PM
> > > > > > To: 'TEITAC Committee'
> > > > > > Subject: [teitac-committee] Clarification on accessible
> > > > > > content regardlessof medium
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi All,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In our discussion this past Monday with the Access
> Board, an
> > > > > > item came up that they would like the Committee to clarify.
> > > > > > Many people seem to think that as long as content is not
> > > > on the web,
> > > > > > such as stored on on a CD or DVD, or transmitted
> via email or
> > > > > > FTP (instead of HTTP), it is somehow exempt from 508.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Although our recommendations seem to clearly cover other
> > > > media, the
> > > > > > staff would like to see some more explicit
> language. I think
> > > > > > the best place is in Subpart D, provision 2-D - Accessible
> > > > Content. It
> > > > > > currently reads:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "In complying with this subpart, each agency must operate
> > > > software
> > > > > > in a manner such that output from the software that is
> > > > distributed
> > > > > > or archived by the agency is made accessible to people with
> > > > > > disabilities."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mike and I propose amending it to read:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "In complying with this subpart, each agency must operate
> > > > software
> > > > > > in a manner such that output from the software that is
> > > > distributed
> > > > > > or archived by the agency, regardless of the medium
> of storage
>
> > > > > > or transmission, is made accessible to people with
> disabilities."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This provision is on next Tuesday's agenda.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ***
> > > > > > Jim Tobias
> > > > > > Inclusive Technologies
> > > > > > +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> > > > > > +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> > > > > > skype jimtobias
> > > > > >
> > > > > >

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