Thread Subject: Accessibility of Second Life and related applications

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Walser, Kate
Date: Mon, Jun 25 2007 9:55 AM
Subject: Accessibility of Second Life and related applications

All,



The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, National Institutes of
Health, National Library of Medicine, Library of Congress, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, and about 10 others government agencies
now use Second Life (http://www.lindenlabs.com
<http://www.lindenlabs.com/> )

for various functions including training simulations and public
outreach. Second Life is a sort of immersive environment in which you
move your avatar around and communicate with other avatars. You can buy
and sell services and goods, attend presentations, sit in forums, etc.
A group - Real Life Government in Second Life - has even sprung up to
enable these agencies to discuss and share ideas about using Second
Life. Use of Second Life and other immersive experiences may expand in
coming years for education and training, collaboration, and information
retrieval. The Real Life Government in Second Life group has raised
questions about Section 508 from what I understand.



In talking with some folks across the subcommittees, it doesn't sound
like any of us have discussed the accessibility of these immersive
environments or networked virtual environments. (There are others
besides Second Life) Not an easy beast to tackle, let alone in time for
June/July deadlines, but an area we should at least discuss and explore.



I can set up a discussion with some of our SRA folks who work with the
Real Life Government in Second Life group (and potentially with some of
that group's members) but have hesitated as any demonstrations of the
Second Life environment would not be accessible.



Is there interest in exploring this through at least a discussion with
folks who have been working with the agencies and have insight into how
they're using Second Life? And if so, please think about which
subcommittee we should have take the ball on this one - general, video,
web-software?



Cheers,

Kate





Kate Walser

Director, Usability Center of Excellence

SRA International, Inc.

4300 Fair Lakes Court

Fairfax, VA 22033

(703) 502-1170

From: Walser, Kate
Date: Mon, Jun 25 2007 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: Accessibility of Second Life and related applications

David Poehlman wrote:
These environments are not accessible and should not be used by any
federal agency or others bound by 508.

Kate replies:
David, I agree that they do not meet Section 508 as is. I wonder if
there are ways to make the underlying data accessible or ways for us to
ensure there are standards that address this type of technology moving
forward, to help promote accessibility. To date, we didn't stop looking
at or considering the use of technologies just because they weren't
accessible at the time, but rather looked to see whether we could make
the underlying data accessible somehow and ultimately provide an
accessible format.

Since sending my original note, I've learned that there is now a version
that has audio capabilities - I'm not certain whether it just tells the
user what is happening or enables speech input as well. Still checking.

I've added the video subcommittee to the distribution list as well -
accidentally left them off original send.

Cheers,
Kate
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
Poehlman
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 11:44 AM
To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee; TEITAC
Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re:
[teitac-general][teitac-video][teitac-websoftware]Accessibility ofSecond
Lifeand related applications

These environments are not accessible and should not be used by any
federal
agency or others bound by 508.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Walser, Kate" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
"TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 11:08 AM
Subject: [teitac-general]
[teitac-video][teitac-websoftware]Accessibility
ofSecond Life and related applications


All,



The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, National Institutes of
Health, National Library of Medicine, Library of Congress, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, and about 10 others government agencies
now use Second Life (http://www.lindenlabs.com
<http://www.lindenlabs.com/> )

for various functions including training simulations and public
outreach. Second Life is a sort of immersive environment in which you
move your avatar around and communicate with other avatars. You can buy
and sell services and goods, attend presentations, sit in forums, etc.
A group - Real Life Government in Second Life - has even sprung up to
enable these agencies to discuss and share ideas about using Second
Life. Use of Second Life and other immersive experiences may expand in
coming years for education and training, collaboration, and information
retrieval. The Real Life Government in Second Life group has raised
questions about Section 508 from what I understand.



In talking with some folks across the subcommittees, it doesn't sound
like any of us have discussed the accessibility of these immersive
environments or networked virtual environments. (There are others
besides Second Life) Not an easy beast to tackle, let alone in time for
June/July deadlines, but an area we should at least discuss and explore.



I can set up a discussion with some of our SRA folks who work with the
Real Life Government in Second Life group (and potentially with some of
that group's members) but have hesitated as any demonstrations of the
Second Life environment would not be accessible.



Is there interest in exploring this through at least a discussion with
folks who have been working with the agencies and have insight into how
they're using Second Life? And if so, please think about which
subcommittee we should have take the ball on this one - general, video,
web-software?



Cheers,

Kate





Kate Walser

Director, Usability Center of Excellence

SRA International, Inc.

4300 Fair Lakes Court

Fairfax, VA 22033

(703) 502-1170






------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

From: Walser, Kate
Date: Mon, Jun 25 2007 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Accessibility of Second Life and related applications

David Poehlman wrote:
These environments are not accessible and should not be used by any
federal agency or others bound by 508.

Kate replies:
David, I agree that they do not meet Section 508 as is. I wonder if
there are ways to make the underlying data accessible or ways for us to
ensure there are standards that address this type of technology moving
forward, to help promote accessibility. To date, we didn't stop looking
at or considering the use of technologies just because they weren't
accessible at the time, but rather looked to see whether we could make
the underlying data accessible somehow and ultimately provide an
accessible format.

Since sending my original note, I've learned that there is now a version
that has audio capabilities - I'm not certain whether it just tells the
user what is happening or enables speech input as well. Still checking.

I've added the video subcommittee to the distribution list as well -
accidentally left them off original send.

Cheers,
Kate
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
Poehlman
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 11:44 AM
To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee; TEITAC
Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re:
[teitac-general][teitac-video][teitac-websoftware]Accessibility ofSecond
Lifeand related applications

These environments are not accessible and should not be used by any
federal
agency or others bound by 508.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Walser, Kate" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
"TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 11:08 AM
Subject: [teitac-general]
[teitac-video][teitac-websoftware]Accessibility
ofSecond Life and related applications


All,



The Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, National Institutes of
Health, National Library of Medicine, Library of Congress, National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Agency, and about 10 others government agencies
now use Second Life (http://www.lindenlabs.com
<http://www.lindenlabs.com/> )

for various functions including training simulations and public
outreach. Second Life is a sort of immersive environment in which you
move your avatar around and communicate with other avatars. You can buy
and sell services and goods, attend presentations, sit in forums, etc.
A group - Real Life Government in Second Life - has even sprung up to
enable these agencies to discuss and share ideas about using Second
Life. Use of Second Life and other immersive experiences may expand in
coming years for education and training, collaboration, and information
retrieval. The Real Life Government in Second Life group has raised
questions about Section 508 from what I understand.



In talking with some folks across the subcommittees, it doesn't sound
like any of us have discussed the accessibility of these immersive
environments or networked virtual environments. (There are others
besides Second Life) Not an easy beast to tackle, let alone in time for
June/July deadlines, but an area we should at least discuss and explore.



I can set up a discussion with some of our SRA folks who work with the
Real Life Government in Second Life group (and potentially with some of
that group's members) but have hesitated as any demonstrations of the
Second Life environment would not be accessible.



Is there interest in exploring this through at least a discussion with
folks who have been working with the agencies and have insight into how
they're using Second Life? And if so, please think about which
subcommittee we should have take the ball on this one - general, video,
web-software?



Cheers,

Kate





Kate Walser

Director, Usability Center of Excellence

SRA International, Inc.

4300 Fair Lakes Court

Fairfax, VA 22033

(703) 502-1170






------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------

From: Will Pearson
Date: Thu, Aug 02 2007 12:45 AM
Subject: Second Life

Hi,

Mike Paciello suggested that I contribute to the discussion on Second Life.

I suspect that quite a few of you already know me but for those of you who
don't I'll give a quick introduction. I'm Will Pearson, a blind guy from
the UK. I've got something of a track record in the field of accessibility:
I spent a while working as a contractor for Freedom cientific on advanced
user interface research, I now act as a consultant for another screen reader
vendor, I've worked with several big name software companies, such as
Microsoft, on making some of their products more accessible, and, more
recently, I've started to work for Mike at TPG; however, most of my time
these days is spent looking into collaboration, virtual reality, and haptics
as part of my PhD in the Computer Science department at the University of
Bristol. Whilst accessibility is not the area of my PhD, given my previous
and current work in accessibility and my research into collaboration and
virtual reality I do have an interest in making virtual environments more
accessible.

At the moment virtual environments do not exclude everyone who has a
disability. If we take Second Life as an example then there are a number of
videos on websites such as YouTube that contain interviews with disabled
users of Second Life, and particularly people who have mobility problems.
The reason why Second Life and other virtual environment systems seem to be
relatively popular amongst disabled users who can use them seems to be that
they can perform activities in virtual environment systems that they cannot
perform in the real world; so, for some at least virtual reality actually
seems to be more accessible than the real world. A second reason, although
not exclusive to virtual environments, seems to be that people who have a
disability can meet up with others who have a disability in a colocated
virtual reality system. Often, this is quite difficult to do in real life
given the relatively low numbers of people who have a disability and thus
the likely low density of people with a disability in a given geographic
region. Second Life actually contains clubs and other buildings, such as
Wheelies, that are run by people who have a disability to serve as a focal
point for disabled users of Second Life.

The benefits that virtual reality can bring to groups who have other types
of disability is also quite significant. Taking the blind as an example, as
it's a group that I have the most experience of, then several benefits come
to mind. Often people learn about objects in the world from looking at
pictures in books and watching pictures on TV. Pictures are very useful as
they avoid the ambiguity, lack of precision, memory limitations, and
cognitive workload that is often associated with natural language. Blind
people often touch physical objects to gain details of their shape, spatial
relationships to other objects, etc and this delivers the same information
as pictures do and also avoids the problems of natural language. There are
several problems with touching real world objects: quite a lot are too big
to touch them in their entirety and quite a lot are located signficant
distances away from the person who wants to investigate them. To get around
these problems models of the objects are often used in place of the real
object; however, because models are physical objects in their own right they
are difficult to share, store, transport and they can suffer damage. One
emerging technology is haptics, which is a technology that can allow someone
to touch simulated objects, and consumer orientated haptic devices are now
starting to appear on the market, such as the Novint Falcon. Combining
haptics with virtual reality would give a solution where any object could be
modelled and that model could be shared with anyone in the world. Objects
that are far away, such as the moon, could be modelled, objects that are too
small to touch, such as the double helix structure of DNA, could be scaled
up, and objects that are too big, such as the space shuttle, could be scaled
down. This could go a long way to improving the education of blind people
in certain subjects. One other possible use is in mobility training. The
information given by long canes and guide dogs can be considered to be a set
of forces. haptic devices can simulate forces, and so virtual long canes
and virtual guide dogs can be simulated. This could allow people to explore
environments that they plan to visit before they visit them, whcih is likely
to improve their confidence when they visit that environment in the real
world. Whilst not all of the information found in the real world can be
delivered through haptics or virtual reality the amount of information that
can does give it some interesting applications.

So, I think that people with disabilities can benefit from virtual reality
technology beyond the benefits that virtual reality generally offers.
Therefore, the question is not whether people should be using virtual
reality but how do we best make it accessible to those who currently cannot
access it.

Will

From: David Poehlman
Date: Thu, Aug 02 2007 5:20 AM
Subject: Re: Second Life

Will,

This is all good, we are operating in s sphere of rather non dynamic content
though and while potentially benefitial, vr seems to fall outside the scope
of our current work. I will be interested in what comes out of next weeks
meeting.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Will Pearson" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 2:42 AM
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life


Hi,

Mike Paciello suggested that I contribute to the discussion on Second Life.

I suspect that quite a few of you already know me but for those of you who
don't I'll give a quick introduction. I'm Will Pearson, a blind guy from
the UK. I've got something of a track record in the field of accessibility:
I spent a while working as a contractor for Freedom cientific on advanced
user interface research, I now act as a consultant for another screen reader
vendor, I've worked with several big name software companies, such as
Microsoft, on making some of their products more accessible, and, more
recently, I've started to work for Mike at TPG; however, most of my time
these days is spent looking into collaboration, virtual reality, and haptics
as part of my PhD in the Computer Science department at the University of
Bristol. Whilst accessibility is not the area of my PhD, given my previous
and current work in accessibility and my research into collaboration and
virtual reality I do have an interest in making virtual environments more
accessible.

At the moment virtual environments do not exclude everyone who has a
disability. If we take Second Life as an example then there are a number of
videos on websites such as YouTube that contain interviews with disabled
users of Second Life, and particularly people who have mobility problems.
The reason why Second Life and other virtual environment systems seem to be
relatively popular amongst disabled users who can use them seems to be that
they can perform activities in virtual environment systems that they cannot
perform in the real world; so, for some at least virtual reality actually
seems to be more accessible than the real world. A second reason, although
not exclusive to virtual environments, seems to be that people who have a
disability can meet up with others who have a disability in a colocated
virtual reality system. Often, this is quite difficult to do in real life
given the relatively low numbers of people who have a disability and thus
the likely low density of people with a disability in a given geographic
region. Second Life actually contains clubs and other buildings, such as
Wheelies, that are run by people who have a disability to serve as a focal
point for disabled users of Second Life.

The benefits that virtual reality can bring to groups who have other types
of disability is also quite significant. Taking the blind as an example, as
it's a group that I have the most experience of, then several benefits come
to mind. Often people learn about objects in the world from looking at
pictures in books and watching pictures on TV. Pictures are very useful as
they avoid the ambiguity, lack of precision, memory limitations, and
cognitive workload that is often associated with natural language. Blind
people often touch physical objects to gain details of their shape, spatial
relationships to other objects, etc and this delivers the same information
as pictures do and also avoids the problems of natural language. There are
several problems with touching real world objects: quite a lot are too big
to touch them in their entirety and quite a lot are located signficant
distances away from the person who wants to investigate them. To get around
these problems models of the objects are often used in place of the real
object; however, because models are physical objects in their own right they
are difficult to share, store, transport and they can suffer damage. One
emerging technology is haptics, which is a technology that can allow someone
to touch simulated objects, and consumer orientated haptic devices are now
starting to appear on the market, such as the Novint Falcon. Combining
haptics with virtual reality would give a solution where any object could be
modelled and that model could be shared with anyone in the world. Objects
that are far away, such as the moon, could be modelled, objects that are too
small to touch, such as the double helix structure of DNA, could be scaled
up, and objects that are too big, such as the space shuttle, could be scaled
down. This could go a long way to improving the education of blind people
in certain subjects. One other possible use is in mobility training. The
information given by long canes and guide dogs can be considered to be a set
of forces. haptic devices can simulate forces, and so virtual long canes
and virtual guide dogs can be simulated. This could allow people to explore
environments that they plan to visit before they visit them, whcih is likely
to improve their confidence when they visit that environment in the real
world. Whilst not all of the information found in the real world can be
delivered through haptics or virtual reality the amount of information that
can does give it some interesting applications.

So, I think that people with disabilities can benefit from virtual reality
technology beyond the benefits that virtual reality generally offers.
Therefore, the question is not whether people should be using virtual
reality but how do we best make it accessible to those who currently cannot
access it.

Will

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Thu, Aug 02 2007 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Second Life

Will,

I don't think anyone is disputing the potential, and powerful
applications of virtual environments, but in the context of 508 the big
question for me is whether the technology is ready for specific mention
and standards. It seems that we have a few options:

A) come up with specific requirements for virtual and simulated 3D
enviromnents (relates strongly to whether the access technologies are
ready)
B) rely on the standards that reference the need to expose programmatic
information about UI objects to help address needs of blind users and
other standards to support other user populations and be explicit that
this type of application is not exempt
C) punt the issue to "equivalent facilitation" for this version and hope
that the industry matures by 2011 when we do this again.

Maybe there's other options, but part of me wonders if this isn't going
to be solved in a reasonably comprehensive way anytime soon and if we're
being too optimistically aggressive on this topic.

AWK



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Will Pearson
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 2:43 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life
>
> Hi,
>
> Mike Paciello suggested that I contribute to the discussion
> on Second Life.
>
> I suspect that quite a few of you already know me but for
> those of you who don't I'll give a quick introduction. I'm
> Will Pearson, a blind guy from the UK. I've got something of
> a track record in the field of accessibility:
> I spent a while working as a contractor for Freedom cientific
> on advanced user interface research, I now act as a
> consultant for another screen reader vendor, I've worked with
> several big name software companies, such as Microsoft, on
> making some of their products more accessible, and, more
> recently, I've started to work for Mike at TPG; however, most
> of my time these days is spent looking into collaboration,
> virtual reality, and haptics as part of my PhD in the
> Computer Science department at the University of Bristol.
> Whilst accessibility is not the area of my PhD, given my
> previous and current work in accessibility and my research
> into collaboration and virtual reality I do have an interest
> in making virtual environments more accessible.
>
> At the moment virtual environments do not exclude everyone
> who has a disability. If we take Second Life as an example
> then there are a number of videos on websites such as YouTube
> that contain interviews with disabled users of Second Life,
> and particularly people who have mobility problems.
> The reason why Second Life and other virtual environment
> systems seem to be relatively popular amongst disabled users
> who can use them seems to be that they can perform activities
> in virtual environment systems that they cannot perform in
> the real world; so, for some at least virtual reality
> actually seems to be more accessible than the real world. A
> second reason, although not exclusive to virtual
> environments, seems to be that people who have a disability
> can meet up with others who have a disability in a colocated
> virtual reality system. Often, this is quite difficult to do
> in real life given the relatively low numbers of people who
> have a disability and thus the likely low density of people
> with a disability in a given geographic region. Second Life
> actually contains clubs and other buildings, such as
> Wheelies, that are run by people who have a disability to
> serve as a focal point for disabled users of Second Life.
>
> The benefits that virtual reality can bring to groups who
> have other types of disability is also quite significant.
> Taking the blind as an example, as it's a group that I have
> the most experience of, then several benefits come to mind.
> Often people learn about objects in the world from looking at
> pictures in books and watching pictures on TV. Pictures are
> very useful as they avoid the ambiguity, lack of precision,
> memory limitations, and cognitive workload that is often
> associated with natural language. Blind people often touch
> physical objects to gain details of their shape, spatial
> relationships to other objects, etc and this delivers the
> same information as pictures do and also avoids the problems
> of natural language. There are several problems with
> touching real world objects: quite a lot are too big to touch
> them in their entirety and quite a lot are located signficant
> distances away from the person who wants to investigate them.
> To get around these problems models of the objects are often
> used in place of the real object; however, because models are
> physical objects in their own right they are difficult to
> share, store, transport and they can suffer damage. One
> emerging technology is haptics, which is a technology that
> can allow someone to touch simulated objects, and consumer
> orientated haptic devices are now starting to appear on the
> market, such as the Novint Falcon. Combining haptics with
> virtual reality would give a solution where any object could
> be modelled and that model could be shared with anyone in the
> world. Objects that are far away, such as the moon, could be
> modelled, objects that are too small to touch, such as the
> double helix structure of DNA, could be scaled up, and
> objects that are too big, such as the space shuttle, could be
> scaled down. This could go a long way to improving the
> education of blind people in certain subjects. One other
> possible use is in mobility training. The information given
> by long canes and guide dogs can be considered to be a set of
> forces. haptic devices can simulate forces, and so virtual
> long canes and virtual guide dogs can be simulated. This
> could allow people to explore environments that they plan to
> visit before they visit them, whcih is likely to improve
> their confidence when they visit that environment in the real
> world. Whilst not all of the information found in the real
> world can be delivered through haptics or virtual reality the
> amount of information that can does give it some interesting
> applications.
>
> So, I think that people with disabilities can benefit from
> virtual reality technology beyond the benefits that virtual
> reality generally offers.
> Therefore, the question is not whether people should be using
> virtual reality but how do we best make it accessible to
> those who currently cannot access it.
>
> Will
>
>

From: William Loughborough
Date: Thu, Aug 02 2007 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: Second Life

Andrew Kirkpatrick wrote:
> Maybe there's other options, but part of me wonders if this isn't going
> to be solved in a reasonably comprehensive way anytime soon and if we're
> being too optimistically aggressive on this topic.
>
This is already a rathole. Off-topic. Not a part of the mission to
re-write 508.

Love.

From: Jared Smith
Date: Thu, Aug 02 2007 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: Second Life

On 8/2/07, Andrew Kirkpatrick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:

> B) rely on the standards that reference the need to expose programmatic
> information about UI objects to help address needs of blind users and
> other standards to support other user populations and be explicit that
> this type of application is not exempt

I think we already have much of this, but it could certainly be
strengthened. Second Life has a fairly powerful API and scripting
engine that could allow someone to build a relatively accessible
alternative interface for screen reader users. It would essentially
turn much (though admittedly not all) of the visual and interactive
elements into explanatory text elements that could be accessed. It
would be much like directions in Google Maps - the maps themselves are
not accessible to screen reader users, but the text directions are.

There really is a lot of potential to making such environments
accessible and insomuch as we can promote this with the guidelines, we
should do so. Simply 'punting the issue to equivalent facilitation'
will likely happen anyway, but by providing guidance, we can encourage
some levels of accessibility.

Jared Smith

From: Katie Haritos-Shea
Date: Thu, Aug 02 2007 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Second Life

I agree with Jared.

Katie

-----Original Message-----
>From: Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Sent: Aug 2, 2007 11:21 AM
>To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life
>
>On 8/2/07, Andrew Kirkpatrick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> B) rely on the standards that reference the need to expose programmatic
>> information about UI objects to help address needs of blind users and
>> other standards to support other user populations and be explicit that
>> this type of application is not exempt
>
>I think we already have much of this, but it could certainly be
>strengthened. Second Life has a fairly powerful API and scripting
>engine that could allow someone to build a relatively accessible
>alternative interface for screen reader users. It would essentially
>turn much (though admittedly not all) of the visual and interactive
>elements into explanatory text elements that could be accessed. It
>would be much like directions in Google Maps - the maps themselves are
>not accessible to screen reader users, but the text directions are.
>
>There really is a lot of potential to making such environments
>accessible and insomuch as we can promote this with the guidelines, we
>should do so. Simply 'punting the issue to equivalent facilitation'
>will likely happen anyway, but by providing guidance, we can encourage
>some levels of accessibility.
>
>Jared Smith
>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Thu, Aug 02 2007 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: Second Life

so I can take off the rapper but can't eat the candy? As I understood the
discussion, this is avirtual world and in order to take advantage of it, you
must approach it from a visual/hactic standpoint. Google on the other hand
does provide lots of usefull ifnormation concerning geography and topography
without the visual interface.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Katie Haritos-Shea" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 12:19 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life


I agree with Jared.

Katie

-----Original Message-----
>From: Jared Smith < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Sent: Aug 2, 2007 11:21 AM
>To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life
>
>On 8/2/07, Andrew Kirkpatrick < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > wrote:
>
>> B) rely on the standards that reference the need to expose programmatic
>> information about UI objects to help address needs of blind users and
>> other standards to support other user populations and be explicit that
>> this type of application is not exempt
>
>I think we already have much of this, but it could certainly be
>strengthened. Second Life has a fairly powerful API and scripting
>engine that could allow someone to build a relatively accessible
>alternative interface for screen reader users. It would essentially
>turn much (though admittedly not all) of the visual and interactive
>elements into explanatory text elements that could be accessed. It
>would be much like directions in Google Maps - the maps themselves are
>not accessible to screen reader users, but the text directions are.
>
>There really is a lot of potential to making such environments
>accessible and insomuch as we can promote this with the guidelines, we
>should do so. Simply 'punting the issue to equivalent facilitation'
>will likely happen anyway, but by providing guidance, we can encourage
>some levels of accessibility.
>
>Jared Smith
>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Aug 02 2007 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: Second Life

Couple comments


1) It would seem we absolutely need to address this topic in the standards.
The government is beginning to use it and it is definitely E&IT so it is
subject to 508. I would seem that our regs will be applied to Second Life
whether we want them to or not. So we should be sure that we have sensible
way to do so.

2) Is Second Life actually a Web application as we have defined them or is
it just a software program that interacts with data over the Internet.
You use HTTP to download an install program. But you could also have one
sent to you by a buddy via the US mail if you wanted to. Once you install it
- doest it use HTTP to access content? Or does it use another protocol. If
not HTTP then it isn't web content as we have defined it.

3) I would assume this would follow the same rules as any software program
after that. Much of the visual imagery would be lost of course - but
since everything is computer generated or computer mediated, it would appear
that this world and its interactions could be much more accessible than the
real world - with the rather notable exception that nothing is tactile or
anything like real tactile. I would assume that one could be quite social
though in this environment and much more.


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 9:52 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life
>
> Will,
>
> I don't think anyone is disputing the potential, and powerful
> applications of virtual environments, but in the context of
> 508 the big question for me is whether the technology is
> ready for specific mention and standards. It seems that we
> have a few options:
>
> A) come up with specific requirements for virtual and
> simulated 3D enviromnents (relates strongly to whether the
> access technologies are
> ready)
> B) rely on the standards that reference the need to expose
> programmatic information about UI objects to help address
> needs of blind users and other standards to support other
> user populations and be explicit that this type of
> application is not exempt
> C) punt the issue to "equivalent facilitation" for this
> version and hope that the industry matures by 2011 when we do
> this again.
>
> Maybe there's other options, but part of me wonders if this
> isn't going to be solved in a reasonably comprehensive way
> anytime soon and if we're being too optimistically aggressive
> on this topic.
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Will
> > Pearson
> > Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 2:43 AM
> > To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > Mike Paciello suggested that I contribute to the discussion
> on Second
> > Life.
> >
> > I suspect that quite a few of you already know me but for
> those of you
> > who don't I'll give a quick introduction. I'm Will
> Pearson, a blind
> > guy from the UK. I've got something of a track record in
> the field of
> > accessibility:
> > I spent a while working as a contractor for Freedom cientific on
> > advanced user interface research, I now act as a consultant for
> > another screen reader vendor, I've worked with several big name
> > software companies, such as Microsoft, on making some of their
> > products more accessible, and, more recently, I've started
> to work for
> > Mike at TPG; however, most of my time these days is spent
> looking into
> > collaboration, virtual reality, and haptics as part of my
> PhD in the
> > Computer Science department at the University of Bristol.
> > Whilst accessibility is not the area of my PhD, given my
> previous and
> > current work in accessibility and my research into
> collaboration and
> > virtual reality I do have an interest in making virtual
> environments
> > more accessible.
> >
> > At the moment virtual environments do not exclude everyone
> who has a
> > disability. If we take Second Life as an example then there are a
> > number of videos on websites such as YouTube that contain
> interviews
> > with disabled users of Second Life, and particularly people
> who have
> > mobility problems.
> > The reason why Second Life and other virtual environment
> systems seem
> > to be relatively popular amongst disabled users who can use
> them seems
> > to be that they can perform activities in virtual
> environment systems
> > that they cannot perform in the real world; so, for some at least
> > virtual reality actually seems to be more accessible than the real
> > world. A second reason, although not exclusive to virtual
> > environments, seems to be that people who have a disability
> can meet
> > up with others who have a disability in a colocated virtual reality
> > system. Often, this is quite difficult to do in real life
> given the
> > relatively low numbers of people who have a disability and thus the
> > likely low density of people with a disability in a given
> geographic
> > region. Second Life actually contains clubs and other
> buildings, such
> > as Wheelies, that are run by people who have a disability
> to serve as
> > a focal point for disabled users of Second Life.
> >
> > The benefits that virtual reality can bring to groups who
> have other
> > types of disability is also quite significant.
> > Taking the blind as an example, as it's a group that I have
> the most
> > experience of, then several benefits come to mind.
> > Often people learn about objects in the world from looking
> at pictures
> > in books and watching pictures on TV. Pictures are very useful as
> > they avoid the ambiguity, lack of precision, memory
> limitations, and
> > cognitive workload that is often associated with natural language.
> > Blind people often touch physical objects to gain details of their
> > shape, spatial relationships to other objects, etc and this
> delivers
> > the same information as pictures do and also avoids the problems of
> > natural language. There are several problems with touching
> real world
> > objects: quite a lot are too big to touch them in their
> entirety and
> > quite a lot are located signficant distances away from the
> person who
> > wants to investigate them.
> > To get around these problems models of the objects are
> often used in
> > place of the real object; however, because models are
> physical objects
> > in their own right they are difficult to share, store,
> transport and
> > they can suffer damage. One emerging technology is
> haptics, which is
> > a technology that can allow someone to touch simulated objects, and
> > consumer orientated haptic devices are now starting to
> appear on the
> > market, such as the Novint Falcon. Combining haptics with virtual
> > reality would give a solution where any object could be
> modelled and
> > that model could be shared with anyone in the world.
> Objects that are
> > far away, such as the moon, could be modelled, objects that are too
> > small to touch, such as the double helix structure of DNA, could be
> > scaled up, and objects that are too big, such as the space shuttle,
> > could be scaled down. This could go a long way to improving the
> > education of blind people in certain subjects. One other
> possible use
> > is in mobility training. The information given by long canes and
> > guide dogs can be considered to be a set of forces. haptic devices
> > can simulate forces, and so virtual long canes and virtual
> guide dogs
> > can be simulated. This could allow people to explore environments
> > that they plan to visit before they visit them, whcih is likely to
> > improve their confidence when they visit that environment
> in the real
> > world. Whilst not all of the information found in the real
> world can
> > be delivered through haptics or virtual reality the amount of
> > information that can does give it some interesting applications.
> >
> > So, I think that people with disabilities can benefit from virtual
> > reality technology beyond the benefits that virtual reality
> generally
> > offers.
> > Therefore, the question is not whether people should be
> using virtual
> > reality but how do we best make it accessible to those who
> currently
> > cannot access it.
> >
> > Will
> >
> >

From: Peter Korn
Date: Thu, Aug 02 2007 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: Second Life

Gregg,

Just a quite note on one of your comments. You wrote:

> 2) Is Second Life actually a Web application as we have defined them or is
> it just a software program that interacts with data over the Internet.
> You use HTTP to download an install program. But you could also have one
> sent to you by a buddy via the US mail if you wanted to. Once you install it
> - doest it use HTTP to access content? Or does it use another protocol. If
> not HTTP then it isn't web content as we have defined it.
>

I don't think protocol (e.g. HTTP) is a good test of whether something
is a "web application" or not. Desktop applications (e.g. a ".exe") can
choose to speak HTTP or not as part of their network communication. In
fact, by your test, Netscape and IE are "web applications" because they
"use HTTP to access content"...

If the application requires connection to a server or other computers
over a network (as this one does), it is certainly a "network
application". If the application is delivered via the web (cf. Java Web
Start) but can thereafter be launched directly from your desktop, then
it is a "web-delivered application".

I suggest that if the only way to use an application is via the web
browser, *then* it is a "web application".


Getting back to Second Life and similar virtual worlds applications...
So long as our guidelines (whether "software" or "web application")
result in requiring that all of the inaccessible parts of Second Life be
accessible - that is to say, if every inaccessible aspect of Second Life
is also a violation of our proposed guidelines - then I think we are in
good shape from a guidelines point of view.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Aug 02 2007 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: Second Life

Hi Peter,

Sorry if I wasn't clear. HTTP was the test for WEB CONTENT not
Applications. And it wasn't that they used HTTP to fetch, it was that they
were FETCHED by HTTP.

Yes Second Life would be a network application - but we were separating
network from Web. Web is a subset of network.

Agree with you that if we do this right - "Second life" should be covered
one way or the other.

My comment was just in response to someone saying we didn't need to worry
about SL. I think we do need to be sure that our guidelines (all together)
make sense for these types of applications.


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Peter Korn
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 6:16 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life
>
> Gregg,
>
> Just a quite note on one of your comments. You wrote:
>
> > 2) Is Second Life actually a Web application as we have
> defined them
> > or is it just a software program that interacts with data
> over the Internet.
> > You use HTTP to download an install program. But you could
> also have
> > one sent to you by a buddy via the US mail if you wanted
> to. Once you
> > install it
> > - doest it use HTTP to access content? Or does it use another
> > protocol. If not HTTP then it isn't web content as we have
> defined it.
> >
>
> I don't think protocol (e.g. HTTP) is a good test of whether
> something is a "web application" or not. Desktop
> applications (e.g. a ".exe") can choose to speak HTTP or not
> as part of their network communication. In fact, by your
> test, Netscape and IE are "web applications" because they
> "use HTTP to access content"...
>
> If the application requires connection to a server or other
> computers over a network (as this one does), it is certainly
> a "network application". If the application is delivered via
> the web (cf. Java Web
> Start) but can thereafter be launched directly from your
> desktop, then it is a "web-delivered application".
>
> I suggest that if the only way to use an application is via
> the web browser, *then* it is a "web application".
>
>
> Getting back to Second Life and similar virtual worlds
> applications...
> So long as our guidelines (whether "software" or "web application")
> result in requiring that all of the inaccessible parts of
> Second Life be
> accessible - that is to say, if every inaccessible aspect of
> Second Life
> is also a violation of our proposed guidelines - then I think
> we are in
> good shape from a guidelines point of view.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>

From: Will Pearson
Date: Thu, Aug 02 2007 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: Second Life

Hi Andrew,

I would say that solutions based on speech exist today but these are sort of
quick fix solutions. I'm not eintriely convinced that speech is capable of
providing an optimal solution for these sort of environments, just as I'm
not convinced that speech can provide an optimal solution for diagrams and
images; however, solutions based on speech could be implemented today.

Virtual environments, as with diagrams and images, communicate a lot of
meaning through spatial relationships, such as size and relative
positioning, as well as other physical attributes, such as colour and
intensity. Speech, being a form of natural language, often lacks precision
when it comes to describing these attributes with sufficient detail. For
example, 'next to' is something of an ambiguous statement that lacks
precision as it fails to communicate the exact distance between objects.
Whether the lack of precision actually affects the semantics communicated by
the visual image depends on both the range of physical values that the
person who created the image has mapped semantics to and on the task the
user is trying to perform. For example, the content creator may have simply
just used the fact that something is next to something else to encode
semantics or they may have encoded different semantic values if something is
one centimetre away compared to when it is two centimetres away. Precision
can also impact taks performance for tasks centered around manipulating
spatial relationships. Considering that navigating around environments and
interacting with them is a task that is dependant on spatial relationships
then precision can impact performance. For example, If you are half a metre
away from a door then you can probably open the door where as you would be
unlikely to be able to open it if you were several metres away, although
both could be considered 'close' depending on the relative size and scale of
the environment. The way around precision problems is to present the raw
numeric data to the user but this will require a significant number of
cognitive operations to process.

Virtual environments can be considered to have some characteristics of real
time systems. As environments are dynamic their state of the environment in
one frame can be invalidated in the next frame due to changes in the content
of the environment. This leads to the user requiring information to be
delivered to them within a time limit in order for them to interact with the
environment before the state changes. Whilst I think that the time limit is
greater than one frame, as the changes made during a single frame are often
not great, there is never the less the need for the information to be
delivered in bounded time. This poses a problem for speech, as it does for
all serialised media, because speech often takes longer to communicate the
same information than visual images do.

So, I think we can develop some type of solution at the moment but I think
that current solutions will be problematic. Whilst I think that multimodal
solutions such as haptics are almost ready for use I feel as though their
effectiveness and viability still needs to be proved. Maybe a phased
approach would work where we take a solution at the moment, even though it
is problematic, and revise the solution as better solutions become
available.

Will

From: Will Pearson
Date: Thu, Aug 02 2007 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: Second Life

Hi Greg,

"2) Is Second Life actually a Web application as we have defined them or is
it just a software program that interacts with data over the Internet.
You use HTTP to download an install program. But you could also have one
sent to you by a buddy via the US mail if you wanted to. Once you install it
- doest it use HTTP to access content? Or does it use another protocol. If
not HTTP then it isn't web content as we have defined it."

Whilst I don't know the specific protocols used by Second Life I doubt it
would be HTTP. The transmission model is more of a constantn stream then
the request and response model of HTTP. When I've built virtual
environments in the past I've used my own protocol that was loosely based on
RTP, although I could have used RTP with a custom payload type. This works
for virtual environments that are built around a peer to peer network
architecture, as mine are, but I don't know whether it would work for
virtual environments that are built around a client server network
architecture, as I believe Second Life, Play Station Home, etc. are.
Regardless of the network architecture I doubt people are using HTTP as
their application layer protocol.

Will

From: Barrett, Don
Date: Thu, Aug 02 2007 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: Second Life

The essence of 508 is to mandate the utmost accessibility that a given
technology can provide at a given point in time given the current state
of knowledge and ability in the area of accessibility to that given
technology. Thus, I think the real hard part, especially for a complex
application such as SL is to determine what can be made accessible now
and ensure that those aspects are covered by the standards. By the same
token, we have to be willing to also acknowledge what is not
commercially available in the marketplace from an accessibility point of
view, and also what would constitute a fundamental alteration of an app
like SL. The standards have to be fluid enough such that as
technologies advance and accessible capacities of the application
increase and become commercially available down the road, that the
standards can capture and mandate these capacities that may not yet be
available in the marketplace but will be at a given point of time in the
future. This is the hard part of 508, trying to figure out when we can
insist that a given technology not be used because there is an equal and
more accessible technology available which should be purchased instead,
and when a technology meets the business case and must be used even when
it is pretty much inaccessible because there is nothing else in the
marketplace to challenge it and it meets a true business need.

For years, blind Feds and others did without accessible Blackberry
devices, and 508 allowed it because the exception of commercial
nonavailability wouldn't disallow their procurement under 508. Now that
we have them, using Symbian devices and Blackberry Connect software
running on this platform, nonavailability can no longer apply, so an
agency can't go with a proprietary network that won't support BB Connect
as they might have been able to do at one time.

I want to see SL become as accessible as we can now make it, but I would
hate to see its use limited to its accessible aspects alone.

As much as we didn't like it, we occasionally had to use 1194.22[k] "(k)
A text-only page, with equivalent information or functionality, shall be
provided to make a web site comply with the provisions of this part,
when compliance cannot be accomplished in any other way. The content of
the text-only page shall be updated whenever the primary page changes."

Sometimes, there was just no other way to do things, and the results
were very satisfactory, and each group came away with as rich an
experience as the technology would allow them given its current state.

I think we have gotten rid of standard 22-K, but perhaps for very
special applications such as SL, it might be worth revisiting.

Don









-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter
Korn
Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 7:16 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life

Gregg,

Just a quite note on one of your comments. You wrote:

> 2) Is Second Life actually a Web application as we have defined them
or is
> it just a software program that interacts with data over the Internet.
> You use HTTP to download an install program. But you could also have
one
> sent to you by a buddy via the US mail if you wanted to. Once you
install it
> - doest it use HTTP to access content? Or does it use another
protocol. If
> not HTTP then it isn't web content as we have defined it.
>

I don't think protocol (e.g. HTTP) is a good test of whether something
is a "web application" or not. Desktop applications (e.g. a ".exe") can

choose to speak HTTP or not as part of their network communication. In
fact, by your test, Netscape and IE are "web applications" because they
"use HTTP to access content"...

If the application requires connection to a server or other computers
over a network (as this one does), it is certainly a "network
application". If the application is delivered via the web (cf. Java Web

Start) but can thereafter be launched directly from your desktop, then
it is a "web-delivered application".

I suggest that if the only way to use an application is via the web
browser, *then* it is a "web application".


Getting back to Second Life and similar virtual worlds applications...
So long as our guidelines (whether "software" or "web application")
result in requiring that all of the inaccessible parts of Second Life be

accessible - that is to say, if every inaccessible aspect of Second Life

is also a violation of our proposed guidelines - then I think we are in
good shape from a guidelines point of view.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Aug 02 2007 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: Second Life

That is what I thought. Thanks


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Will Pearson
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 8:42 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> "2) Is Second Life actually a Web application as we have
> defined them or is it just a software program that interacts
> with data over the Internet.
> You use HTTP to download an install program. But you could
> also have one sent to you by a buddy via the US mail if you
> wanted to. Once you install it
> - doest it use HTTP to access content? Or does it use
> another protocol. If not HTTP then it isn't web content as we
> have defined it."
>
> Whilst I don't know the specific protocols used by Second
> Life I doubt it would be HTTP. The transmission model is
> more of a constantn stream then the request and response
> model of HTTP. When I've built virtual environments in the
> past I've used my own protocol that was loosely based on RTP,
> although I could have used RTP with a custom payload type.
> This works for virtual environments that are built around a
> peer to peer network architecture, as mine are, but I don't
> know whether it would work for virtual environments that are
> built around a client server network architecture, as I
> believe Second Life, Play Station Home, etc. are.
> Regardless of the network architecture I doubt people are
> using HTTP as their application layer protocol.
>
> Will
>
>

From: Sean Hayes
Date: Fri, Aug 03 2007 3:20 AM
Subject: Re: Second Life

Second life apparently uses XMLRPC and UDP as its network protocols [1]. XMLRPC does run over HTTP but this is mainly for setup (logging in etc), the actual model rendering protocol appears to be UDP based.

I share Peter's concern over using HTTP or indeed any other specific technology as the defining attribute of a class of software for 508, as it creates too many gray areas.

Outlook is in one mode by this definition a web application, as it is able to communicate with the Exchange server using HTTP tunnelling, yet in a second mode it is not. Other network connected applications use similar tunnelling. Parts of many sites use RTP or UDP, FTP or other network protocols.

This whole Web/Software/Content debate is extremely problematic.

Firstly we have to try and distinguish between applications and data, but this is difficult because software is essentially "data in motion". Whether data is "in motion" can be a judgement call, for example Spreadsheets, 3D models, Presentations and so on can all be 'put in motion' in ways which make them appear and behave like software. Lisp is a classic example of a system where the difference between data and program is a point of view.

Besides that debate, we also have some defining attributes of software:

On one dimension we have
1 - Client only
2 - Client Server

We can distinguish sub categories of client server like:

2.1 - Connected, where the application communicates with server applications for data, but the application itself is wholly running on the client (it may have been downloaded before executing)
2.2 - Paged, where the application itself is loaded on demand from a network in small pieces.

(Another type of connected is distributed, where the application itself is partly running on a server and partly on a client. The distinction between distributed and connected is fairly subtle though)

Another dimension we have discussed is:
A - Platform hosted
B - Non hosted.

Platform hosted means there is a runtime layer isolating the application from an underlying platform, non-hosted means no such isolation is happening (although the boundaries of this get a bit fuzzy when you consider an operating system)

A Web browser is typically Connected, Non hosted (but examples of other types exist), the data rendered within it is historically paged, platform hosted, but with "Web 2.0" is increasingly becoming connected, platform hosted. A web browser is capable of putting web data "in motion", by suitably interpreting form elements, script and CSS. But simple text based html is not really an application.

Second life is connected, non-hosted I believe (although it could equally be other); the data within second life is not generally considered software, in the sense that the client is really presenting a view of something being calculated on the server. One doesn't typically think of the 3D locations in second life as applications although you could certainly argue that they are 'data in motion', and I believe it is possible to upload and run 'automata' scripts within the second life server as part of a 3d model.

An email program is again typically connected, non-hosted (but could be 2.1A, 2.2A, or even 2.2 B); the content within it is typically regarded as just data, but examples exist where the email is 'put in motion' by the email client. Word processing, Paint and Draw type programs also typically regard data as passive, but often have features which are able to put their data 'in motion'.

I very much doubt that we will be able to come up with clean dividing lines for all this stuff within the 508 recommendation. What we need to strive for is to create rules that no matter how data is being presented, it can be utilized directly or adapted by AT for PWD. I think focusing on the user need, rather than the product characteristic is the way to organise the regulation; with individual clauses containing any necessary conditionals limiting their scope.


[1] https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Protocol

Sean Hayes
Incubation Lab
Accessibility Business Unit
Microsoft
Phone:
mob +44 7977 455002
office +44 117 9719730

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Fri, Aug 03 2007 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Second Life

Gregg wrote:
> 1) It would seem we absolutely need to address this topic in
> the standards.
> The government is beginning to use it and it is definitely
> E&IT so it is subject to 508. I would seem that our regs
> will be applied to Second Life whether we want them to or
> not. So we should be sure that we have sensible way to do so.

I agree; SecondLife and others like it should be the acid test of the
completeness of the web & software provisions.

> 2) Is Second Life actually a Web application as we have
> defined them or is it just a software program that interacts
> with data over the Internet.
> You use HTTP to download an install program. But you could
> also have one sent to you by a buddy via the US mail if you
> wanted to. Once you install it
> - doest it use HTTP to access content? Or does it use
> another protocol. If not HTTP then it isn't web content as we
> have defined it.

I think SecondLife uses both proprietary and public protocols
simultaneously, but otherwise it's as you describe it: an installed
application that uses remote data to drive the local processing.
But with respect to HTTP, I think the logic should go the other way:
if something doesn't use HTTP, then we shouldn't limit the provisions
to "things that we call 'web' becuase they use HTTP".

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Aug 03 2007 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: Second Life

Jim Wrote:
> I think SecondLife uses both proprietary and public protocols
> simultaneously, but otherwise it's as you describe it: an
> installed application that uses remote data to drive the
> local processing.
> But with respect to HTTP, I think the logic should go the other way:
> if something doesn't use HTTP, then we shouldn't limit the
> provisions to "things that we call 'web' becuase they use HTTP".

This resonates with me.

If we use HTTP to define web - we can't call it Web if it doesn't
specifically use HTTP but it very well may. If it doesn't - then the way we
do the guidelines should still ensure that we have everything covered -
which I think the guidelines did do even when separate.

So Jim's characterization seems like what it should come out like either way
- and if not then we need to re-think it.




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Jim Tobias
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:52 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life
>
> Gregg wrote:
> > 1) It would seem we absolutely need to address this topic in the
> > standards.
> > The government is beginning to use it and it is definitely
> E&IT so it
> > is subject to 508. I would seem that our regs will be applied to
> > Second Life whether we want them to or not. So we should be
> sure that
> > we have sensible way to do so.
>
> I agree; SecondLife and others like it should be the acid
> test of the completeness of the web & software provisions.
>
> > 2) Is Second Life actually a Web application as we have
> defined them
> > or is it just a software program that interacts with data over the
> > Internet.
> > You use HTTP to download an install program. But you could
> also have
> > one sent to you by a buddy via the US mail if you wanted
> to. Once you
> > install it
> > - doest it use HTTP to access content? Or does it use another
> > protocol. If not HTTP then it isn't web content as we have
> defined it.
>
> I think SecondLife uses both proprietary and public protocols
> simultaneously, but otherwise it's as you describe it: an
> installed application that uses remote data to drive the
> local processing.
> But with respect to HTTP, I think the logic should go the other way:
> if something doesn't use HTTP, then we shouldn't limit the
> provisions to "things that we call 'web' becuase they use HTTP".
>
>

From: Will Pearson
Date: Sun, Aug 05 2007 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: Second Life

Jim wrote:
"I think the logic should go the other way:
if something doesn't use HTTP, then we shouldn't limit the provisions to
"things that we call 'web' becuase they use HTTP"."

I agree. Classifying something based on the protocol it uses could give
rise to misclassification in the future. Protocols are a single feature of
something and they are not always unique to a specific category.

Will

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Aug 05 2007 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: Second Life

Hmmmm


HTTP is currently the way the W3C classifies Web content vs other Internet
activity.

We could use something else - but what. We can't say 'anything on the
Internet' or else all email and VoIP suddenly becomes "web content".

Do we have an idea besides HTTP for defining Web content?

I too am concerned about the day when we use something besides HTTP as the
mechanism, so would like to see a more generic definition.

Someone have one?


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Will Pearson
> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 3:16 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life
>
> Jim wrote:
> "I think the logic should go the other way:
> if something doesn't use HTTP, then we shouldn't limit the
> provisions to "things that we call 'web' becuase they use HTTP"."
>
> I agree. Classifying something based on the protocol it uses
> could give rise to misclassification in the future.
> Protocols are a single feature of something and they are not
> always unique to a specific category.
>
> Will
>
>

From: Peter Korn
Date: Sun, Aug 05 2007 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Second Life

Hi Gregg,

Maybe we need to deprecate the term "web content", and in its place
introduce a few new terms:
1. Web page (HTML content, whether generated statically or dynamically)
2. Web-contained application (e.g. a Java applet, Flash - things that
are applications running *within* the browser frame/window) [this is
what we think of as a web application today]
3. Web-launched application (e.g. Java Web Start - things that run
stand-alone, but the user found them an launched them from a web page)
4. Web-linked content (e.g. a .doc or .ods or .pdf file linked to from
a web page, whether via http or ftp or some other protocol; possibly
displayed within the browser frame, possibly not)

Item #1 above is covered by the web portion of our guidelines (whether
unmerged or merged with software). Item #2 above is covered by either
the web application portion or our general software guidelines. Item #3
is covered by our general software guidelines. Item #4 is covered by
our content guidelines.

Note too that with #2 we run into "platform on platform" issues - which
must also be covered by the relevant provision(s).


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> Hmmmm
>
>
> HTTP is currently the way the W3C classifies Web content vs other Internet
> activity.
>
> We could use something else - but what. We can't say 'anything on the
> Internet' or else all email and VoIP suddenly becomes "web content".
>
> Do we have an idea besides HTTP for defining Web content?
>
> I too am concerned about the day when we use something besides HTTP as the
> mechanism, so would like to see a more generic definition.
>
> Someone have one?
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
>> Of Will Pearson
>> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 3:16 AM
>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life
>>
>> Jim wrote:
>> "I think the logic should go the other way:
>> if something doesn't use HTTP, then we shouldn't limit the
>> provisions to "things that we call 'web' becuase they use HTTP"."
>>
>> I agree. Classifying something based on the protocol it uses
>> could give rise to misclassification in the future.
>> Protocols are a single feature of something and they are not
>> always unique to a specific category.
>>
>> Will
>>
>>

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Sun, Aug 05 2007 7:40 PM
Subject: Re: Second Life

Isn't this the same as the web and software convergence issue? If we
commit to create more generic categories like "text content", "interaction
object", etc., I'm sure we can cover all the ground necessary and eliminate
the platform dependent terminologies. I just don't see us having the
consensus to commit to that yet.

******
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1 732.441.0831 voice/tty
skype jimtobias
+1 908.907.2387 mobile

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 3:31 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life
>
> Hmmmm
>
>
> HTTP is currently the way the W3C classifies Web content vs
> other Internet activity.
>
> We could use something else - but what. We can't say
> 'anything on the Internet' or else all email and VoIP
> suddenly becomes "web content".
>
> Do we have an idea besides HTTP for defining Web content?
>
> I too am concerned about the day when we use something
> besides HTTP as the mechanism, so would like to see a more
> generic definition.
>
> Someone have one?
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Will
> > Pearson
> > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 3:16 AM
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life
> >
> > Jim wrote:
> > "I think the logic should go the other way:
> > if something doesn't use HTTP, then we shouldn't limit the
> provisions
> > to "things that we call 'web' becuase they use HTTP"."
> >
> > I agree. Classifying something based on the protocol it uses could
> > give rise to misclassification in the future.
> > Protocols are a single feature of something and they are not always
> > unique to a specific category.
> >
> > Will
> >
> >

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Aug 05 2007 8:25 PM
Subject: Re: Second Life

Yep. Just as with hardware products, software & documents are converging
and it is very hard or impossible to separate things into categories.
Certainly as you point out, Web and software can't be sorted into different
categories.

As Andi pointed out though, some people write what we might call simple
Web content. They need something that just provides the guidelines for
those doing simple web pages. They don't program and can't understand the
software provisions. Where to draw the lines on that though is the
challenge.


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Jim Tobias
> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 8:35 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life
>
> Isn't this the same as the web and software convergence
> issue? If we commit to create more generic categories like
> "text content", "interaction object", etc., I'm sure we can
> cover all the ground necessary and eliminate the platform
> dependent terminologies. I just don't see us having the
> consensus to commit to that yet.
>
> ******
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> +1 732.441.0831 voice/tty
> skype jimtobias
> +1 908.907.2387 mobile
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 3:31 PM
> > To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life
> >
> > Hmmmm
> >
> >
> > HTTP is currently the way the W3C classifies Web content vs other
> > Internet activity.
> >
> > We could use something else - but what. We can't say
> 'anything on the
> > Internet' or else all email and VoIP suddenly becomes "web content".
> >
> > Do we have an idea besides HTTP for defining Web content?
> >
> > I too am concerned about the day when we use something
> besides HTTP as
> > the mechanism, so would like to see a more generic definition.
> >
> > Someone have one?
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> > Behalf Of Will
> > > Pearson
> > > Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 3:16 AM
> > > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life
> > >
> > > Jim wrote:
> > > "I think the logic should go the other way:
> > > if something doesn't use HTTP, then we shouldn't limit the
> > provisions
> > > to "things that we call 'web' becuase they use HTTP"."
> > >
> > > I agree. Classifying something based on the protocol it
> uses could
> > > give rise to misclassification in the future.
> > > Protocols are a single feature of something and they are
> not always
> > > unique to a specific category.
> > >
> > > Will
> > >
> > >

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Aug 05 2007 10:40 PM
Subject: Re: Second Life

HTML is used in many places including dialog boxes and help files in
software. So that can't be the definition of Web Page.

ALSO - there are many technologies besides HTML that are used to create Web
Pages.

I think we need something simpler but I don't know what it would be. Simple
content guidelines (for those who don't know how to program) and then
everything else in one basket I guess.

Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Peter Korn
> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 3:19 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life
>
> Hi Gregg,
>
> Maybe we need to deprecate the term "web content", and in its
> place introduce a few new terms:
> 1. Web page (HTML content, whether generated statically or
> dynamically) 2. Web-contained application (e.g. a Java
> applet, Flash - things that are applications running *within*
> the browser frame/window) [this is what we think of as a web
> application today] 3. Web-launched application (e.g. Java
> Web Start - things that run stand-alone, but the user found
> them an launched them from a web page) 4. Web-linked content
> (e.g. a .doc or .ods or .pdf file linked to from a web page,
> whether via http or ftp or some other protocol; possibly
> displayed within the browser frame, possibly not)
>
> Item #1 above is covered by the web portion of our guidelines
> (whether unmerged or merged with software). Item #2 above is
> covered by either the web application portion or our general
> software guidelines. Item #3 is covered by our general
> software guidelines. Item #4 is covered by our content guidelines.
>
> Note too that with #2 we run into "platform on platform"
> issues - which must also be covered by the relevant provision(s).
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
> > Hmmmm
> >
> >
> > HTTP is currently the way the W3C classifies Web content vs
> other Internet
> > activity.
> >
> > We could use something else - but what. We can't say
> 'anything on the
> > Internet' or else all email and VoIP suddenly becomes "web content".
> >
> > Do we have an idea besides HTTP for defining Web content?
> >
> > I too am concerned about the day when we use something
> besides HTTP as the
> > mechanism, so would like to see a more generic definition.
> >
> > Someone have one?
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> >> Of Will Pearson
> >> Sent: Sunday, August 05, 2007 3:16 AM
> >> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life
> >>
> >> Jim wrote:
> >> "I think the logic should go the other way:
> >> if something doesn't use HTTP, then we shouldn't limit the
> >> provisions to "things that we call 'web' becuase they use HTTP"."
> >>
> >> I agree. Classifying something based on the protocol it uses
> >> could give rise to misclassification in the future.
> >> Protocols are a single feature of something and they are not
> >> always unique to a specific category.
> >>
> >> Will
> >>
> >>

From: Will Pearson
Date: Sun, Aug 05 2007 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: Second Life

Jim wrote:
"Isn't this the same as the web and software convergence issue?"

I believe it is; I also believe that the web and software convergence issue
shows something about the true nature of accessibility. One idea that I've
been developing over the past three or so years is that accessibility is not
a technical problem but rather one of communication. Accessibility problems
and solutions can be modelled in terms of modifications to standard models
of communication, such as the Shannon-Weaver five stage model. In this
communications view of accessibility accessibility problems come about as a
result of the choice of encoding and communications channel and these are
typically linked to the media and presentation type.

Jim wrote:
"If we
commit to create more generic categories like "text content", "interaction
object", etc., I'm sure we can cover all the ground necessary and eliminate
the platform dependent terminologies."

I believe this would be a better approach than technology centric guidance.
To me the approach can better address the real nature of accessibility than
technology centric guidance can. Producing guidance based on media and
presentation type as welll as role is also more future proof than providing
guidance on specific technologies given that technology is constantly
evolving.

Will

From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Tue, Aug 07 2007 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: Second Life

The Second Life example is another reason to advocate web
standards as a specific subset of software standards.

How accessible would it be if Second Life only met the Section
508 Web Standards? How accessible would they be if they only met the
Section 508 Software Standards? Abstractly, I'd be more inclined to
think meeting the software provisions would ensure accessibility - or
clearly document the functional deficiencies where they were missing -
then expect that from the web provisions. That is unless we make the
circular argument that the web provisions reference software through
plug-ins and anything non-HTML is a "plug-in".

The concept of plug-in also fails when combined with a web
browser (or user agent) that has support for the specific format
embedded or calls to an external application on the host operating
system to render the content. In those last examples they aren't
"plug-ins" anymore. However if we consider the web browser software,
including asking for software initiated from the browser to be
considered on their own merits, then we may need to clarify
documentation such as the usual VPAT address each file format or
dependent _software_ required.

The Second Life example also supports the need to define file
formats for (X)HTML and approach the problem from the perspective of
specific protocol techniques _needed_ to support accessibility. I don't
know how far this could go, but I see having to include specific
techniques into a file format to be considered Section 508 compliant as
burdensome, when considering every format available. However, if all the
formats support the functional requirements of the Section 508 software
provisions, then I think we improve accessibility in general and don't
necessarily have to specify specific techniques for each format (e.g.,
alt text in HTML).

Regards,


Norman B. Robinson
Section 508 Coordinator
IT Governance, US Postal Service
phone: 202.268.8246




-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 11:09 AM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life


Jim Wrote:
> I think SecondLife uses both proprietary and public protocols
> simultaneously, but otherwise it's as you describe it: an
> installed application that uses remote data to drive the
> local processing.
> But with respect to HTTP, I think the logic should go the other way:
> if something doesn't use HTTP, then we shouldn't limit the
> provisions to "things that we call 'web' becuase they use HTTP".

This resonates with me.

If we use HTTP to define web - we can't call it Web if it doesn't
specifically use HTTP but it very well may. If it doesn't - then the
way we
do the guidelines should still ensure that we have everything covered -
which I think the guidelines did do even when separate.

So Jim's characterization seems like what it should come out like either
way
- and if not then we need to re-think it.




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Jim Tobias
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:52 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Second Life
>
> Gregg wrote:
> > 1) It would seem we absolutely need to address this topic in the
> > standards.
> > The government is beginning to use it and it is definitely
> E&IT so it
> > is subject to 508. I would seem that our regs will be applied to
> > Second Life whether we want them to or not. So we should be
> sure that
> > we have sensible way to do so.
>
> I agree; SecondLife and others like it should be the acid
> test of the completeness of the web & software provisions.
>
> > 2) Is Second Life actually a Web application as we have
> defined them
> > or is it just a software program that interacts with data over the
> > Internet.
> > You use HTTP to download an install program. But you could
> also have
> > one sent to you by a buddy via the US mail if you wanted
> to. Once you
> > install it
> > - doest it use HTTP to access content? Or does it use another
> > protocol. If not HTTP then it isn't web content as we have
> defined it.
>
> I think SecondLife uses both proprietary and public protocols
> simultaneously, but otherwise it's as you describe it: an
> installed application that uses remote data to drive the
> local processing.
> But with respect to HTTP, I think the logic should go the other way:
> if something doesn't use HTTP, then we shouldn't limit the
> provisions to "things that we call 'web' becuase they use HTTP".
>
>