Thread Subject: 3-U comment
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: Sean Hayes
Date: Wed, Mar 05 2008 8:05 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Peter Korn: "Re: 3-U comment"
- Previous message in thread: None
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
My apologies that I was unable to participate fully in the discussion on this and only caught the last 40 minutes or so. I have read the transcript, and I hope I am up to date with the discussion.
I think I'm OK with the new consensus language of 3-U but want to raise a couple of issues
1 The title is not in italic, but I don't believe it is has made consensus - can we clarify please?
2 The exercise to remove AT, has missed a bit in clause 2:
2. expose a list of actions that can be executed on an object and allow assistive technology to programmatically execute any of those actions;
2. expose a list of actions that can be executed on an object and allow programmatic execution of any of those actions;
Accessibility Business Unit
Office: +44 118 909 5867,
Mobile: +44 7875 091385
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Mike Paciello
Sent: 04 March 2008 18:07
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Functional Performance Criteria
Thanks Gregg. Appreciate the effort.
- Next message in Thread: Peter Korn: "Re: 3-U comment"
- Previous message in Thread: None