Thread Subject: Re: Definition Consensus Decision:Authoring Tools

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: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Tue, Mar 11 2008 1:10 PM

Allen,

> Just because that format is inaccessible does not, in my
view, mean that the tool shouldn't produce accessible content. It can't
because the format chosen won't allow it to work. How do we address
this?

I'm not quite following what your're getting at. It seems like these
statements are contradictory: the tool should produce accessible content
but it can't because the format doesn't support it.

Andi




"Hoffman, Allen"
<Allen.Hoffman@dh
s.gov> To
Sent by: "TEITAC Committee"
teitac-committee- < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = cc
ac.org
Subject
Re: [teitac-committee] Definition
03/10/2008 10:05 Consensus Decision:Authoring
AM Tools


Please respond to
TEITAC Committee
<teitac-committee
@list.teitac.org>






Andi is correct.

The idea was, that for a tool like NotePad, which edits files in ASCII,
such things as alternate text are not feasible, or sensible, so the
authoring tool requirements would not be applicable. My only question,
Andi, is, how should such tools be considered? If we can identify that
maybe an additional note for such tools would be helpful?

So, for example, an org-chart program uses a proprietary format to
present the organizations, it has graphics, relationships, text, and
pictures. Just because that format is inaccessible does not, in my
view, mean that the tool shouldn't produce accessible content. It can't
because the format chosen won't allow it to work. How do we address
this?




Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Snow-Weaver
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2008 10:44 AM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus Decision:Authoring
Tools

Mike and Robert,

I don't think the phrase can be deleted. It's meant to scope the
definition to tools that support content formats which enable the
creation of accessible content. If you can't create accessible content
in the first place with a particular content format, then there's no use
requiring the authoring tool to support the authoring tool requirements.

Andi





"Mike Paciello"

<mpaciello@paciel

logroup.com>
To
Sent by: "'Baker, Robert C.'"

teitac-committee- < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >,
"'TEITAC
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = Committee'"

ac.org
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

cc


03/10/2008 08:48
Subject
AM Re: [teitac-committee] Definition

Consensus Decision: Authoring

Tools

Please respond to

mpaciello@paciell

ogroup.com;

Please respond to

TEITAC Committee

<teitac-committee

@list.teitac.org>









Thank you Robert. EWG will make the adjustment.

-mike

Mike Paciello
Cell: +1.603.566.7713


From: Baker, Robert C. [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] Sent:, Monday,
March 10, 2008 6:45 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Committee
Subject: RE: [teitac-committee] Definition Consensus Decision: Authoring
Tools

Concur with minor change,

"Any software intended to create or modify electronic content for
publication in one or more formats that support compliance with the user
interface and content provisions.

the current statement "that support compliance with the user interface
and content provisions" is confusing and perhaps can be deleted.

Robert

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