Thread Subject: Definition of accessibility
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.
Return to this mailing list's archives
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Nov 09 2006 1:00 PM
Subject: Definition of accessibility
The question has come up as to whether we should try to define
accessibility.
This comes up in many committees I have worked on.
The conclusion the other groups came up with was.
One really can't make products that are accessible.
One can make things accessible to a person in a situation.
One can't make things accessible to a person in all situations.
One can't make things accessible to all people.
So our guidelines are "minimum accessibility guidelines"
They include some things that make products more accessible but not
accessible.
So we shouldn't try to define products as being accessible.
--
The second reason to not define it is that at some point in the discussion
you end up saying "usable". This immediately triggers a discussion of
accessibility vs usability and things go south pretty fast from there.
--
Finally, unless we use the word "accessible" in one of the provisions in
some normative way - it doesn't need to be defined.
Just some thoughts.
Gregg
------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Thu, Nov 09 2006 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: Definition of accessibility
So, how about:
Items shall be considered accessible when the provisions from sub-part C
of this regulation are met, for the general office environment, and
(insert additional environments if needed). We might possibly include
some reference to public or home environment.
Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Nov 09 2006 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: Definition of accessibility
Hmmm
I guess the point I was trying to make is that items that meet our
provisions are not accessible.
These products meet some minimum accessibility standard but are not
accessible to many people.
So whatever definition we come up with - conformance to our guidelines
should not be defined as accessible. There is so much to do beyond what is
required in our guidelines.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:01 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definition of accessibility
So, how about:
Items shall be considered accessible when the provisions from sub-part C of
this regulation are met, for the general office environment, and (insert
additional environments if needed). We might possibly include some
reference to public or home environment.
Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:57 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definition of accessibility
The question has come up as to whether we should try to define
accessibility.
This comes up in many committees I have worked on.
The conclusion the other groups came up with was.
One really can't make products that are accessible.
One can make things accessible to a person in a situation.
One can't make things accessible to a person in all situations.
One can't make things accessible to all people.
So our guidelines are "minimum accessibility guidelines"
They include some things that make products more accessible but not
accessible.
So we shouldn't try to define products as being accessible.
--
The second reason to not define it is that at some point in the discussion
you end up saying "usable". This immediately triggers a discussion of
accessibility vs usability and things go south pretty fast from there.
--
Finally, unless we use the word "accessible" in one of the provisions in
some normative way - it doesn't need to be defined.
Just some thoughts.
Gregg
------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
From: Deborah Buck
Date: Thu, Nov 09 2006 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: Definition of accessibility
I have always liked the approach that accessible E&IT under§508 are those
products that conform to the standards. I understand the intent and can
support the logic to have a clear definition, however as you?ve noted below
it?s very challenging when you try to define the term because it becomes
muddled and very much tied to the individual and the concept of usability
(which is even harder to specify). That said- I think that there is a
benefit to addressing it in some way. You?ve identified an important
distinction about the standards/guidelines in that they provide minimal
accessibility and that?s an important factor that a lot of people don?t
realize. Perhaps there is a way to address the concept of minimal
accessibility - maybe not in a definitional type of format, but a statement
in subpart A. For example:
E&IT products that conform to the (cite the reference to the §508
standards- subpart B, C whatever we end up with) provide minimal
accessibility. Increased accessibility may be achieved as a result of
additional product features or options.
It certainly would need more word smiting.
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:57 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definition of accessibility
The question has come up as to whether we should try to define
accessibility.
This comes up in many committees I have worked on.
The conclusion the other groups came up with was.
One really can't make products that are accessible.
One can make things accessible to a person in a situation.
One can't make things accessible to a person in all situations.
One can't make things accessible to all people.
So our guidelines are ?minimum accessibility guidelines?
They include some things that make products more accessible but not
accessible.
So we shouldn?t try to define products as being accessible.
--
The second reason to not define it is that at some point in the discussion
you end up saying ?usable?. This immediately triggers a discussion of
accessibility vs usability and things go south pretty fast from there.
--
Finally, unless we use the word ?accessible? in one of the provisions in
some normative way ? it doesn?t need to be defined.
Just some thoughts.
Gregg
------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Thu, Nov 09 2006 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: Definition of accessibility
OK:
I wrote:
Items shall be considered accessible when the provisions from sub-part C
of this regulation are met, for the general office environment, and
(insert additional
environments if needed). We might possibly include some reference to
public or home environment.
Greg wrote:
So whatever definition we come up with - conformance to our guidelines
should not be defined as accessible. There is so much to do beyond
what is required
in our guidelines.
I agree that "pure" accessible is not fully met by meeting technical
standards, but meeting adequately sufficient functional performance
criteria, which may include conditional environmental or policy factors,
really should mean accessible for the set of people addressed in those
functional performance criteria. On the other hand we need to get
usable language for the purposes of this effort, not a definition for
all situations and potentials.
Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
From: Deborah Buck
Date: Thu, Nov 09 2006 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Definition of accessibility
I would be nervous about including any reference to environment. I think
that adding environment could potentially limit the applicability of the
standards. Just as we want the technical standards to support ongoing
development and emerging technology we should ensure that the provisions for
implementation aren't limited by including environment. The law sets the
parameters for the environment in which the products are used and identifies
those conditions where exemptions are appropriate. Some employees telework-
but I don't think its appropriate to add home environment or remote telework
sites- as the law stands if IT is being purchased it needs to conform.
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 4:08 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definition of accessibility
OK:
I wrote:
Items shall be considered accessible when the provisions from sub-part C of
this regulation are met, for the general office environment, and (insert
additional
environments if needed). We might possibly include some reference to public
or home environment.
Greg wrote:
So whatever definition we come up with - conformance to our guidelines
should not be defined as accessible. There is so much to do beyond what is
required
in our guidelines.
I agree that "pure" accessible is not fully met by meeting technical
standards, but meeting adequately sufficient functional performance
criteria, which may include conditional environmental or policy factors,
really should mean accessible for the set of people addressed in those
functional performance criteria. On the other hand we need to get usable
language for the purposes of this effort, not a definition for all
situations and potentials.
Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:33 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definition of accessibility
Hmmm
I guess the point I was trying to make is that items that meet our
provisions are not accessible.
These products meet some minimum accessibility standard but are not
accessible to many people.
So whatever definition we come up with - conformance to our guidelines
should not be defined as accessible. There is so much to do beyond what is
required in our guidelines.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:01 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definition of accessibility
So, how about:
Items shall be considered accessible when the provisions from sub-part C of
this regulation are met, for the general office environment, and (insert
additional environments if needed). We might possibly include some
reference to public or home environment.
Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:57 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definition of accessibility
The question has come up as to whether we should try to define
accessibility.
This comes up in many committees I have worked on.
The conclusion the other groups came up with was.
One really can't make products that are accessible.
One can make things accessible to a person in a situation.
One can't make things accessible to a person in all situations.
One can't make things accessible to all people.
So our guidelines are "minimum accessibility guidelines"
They include some things that make products more accessible but not
accessible.
So we shouldn't try to define products as being accessible.
--
The second reason to not define it is that at some point in the discussion
you end up saying "usable". This immediately triggers a discussion of
accessibility vs usability and things go south pretty fast from there.
--
Finally, unless we use the word "accessible" in one of the provisions in
some normative way - it doesn't need to be defined.
Just some thoughts.
Gregg
------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Thu, Nov 09 2006 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: Definition of accessibility
Some exceptions are in the standard as opposed to the law, but I agree
with the sentiment, but in reality, "public" users and "internal" users
have differing requirements. It can be argued that when the IT
environment is managed, some standards can be considered not applicable,
or met via equivalent facilitation.
Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
From: Brett, Thomas F
Date: Thu, Nov 09 2006 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: Definition of accessibility
By Item do you mean EIT equipment or something more?
Tom Brett
From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Thu, Nov 09 2006 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: Definition of accessibility
Item is what our acquisitions folks like to use instead of "products and
services".
They believe deliverables are reports, e.g. paper. I'm getting used to
it, and it does shorten documents to use "item" instead of "product or
service".
Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303
From: Brett, Thomas F
Date: Thu, Nov 09 2006 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: Definition of accessibility
We have to remember in these discussions and musings that not everything is covered by Section 508. Only those 'items' that are defined in the Clinger-Cohen Act can be considered. When Congress amended the Rehabilitation Act they used the Clinger-Cohen as the basis for the law.
Tom Brett
From: Jim Tobias
Date: Thu, Nov 09 2006 9:05 PM
Subject: Re: Definition of accessibility
_____
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:57 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definition of accessibility
The question has come up as to whether we should try to define
accessibility.
This comes up in many committees I have worked on.
The conclusion the other groups came up with was.
One really can't make products that are accessible.
One can make things accessible to a person in a situation.
One can't make things accessible to a person in all situations.
One can't make things accessible to all people.
So our guidelines are "minimum accessibility guidelines"
They include some things that make products more accessible but not
accessible.
So we shouldn't try to define products as being accessible.
--
The second reason to not define it is that at some point in the discussion
you end up saying "usable". This immediately triggers a discussion of
accessibility vs usability and things go south pretty fast from there.
--
Finally, unless we use the word "accessible" in one of the provisions in
some normative way - it doesn't need to be defined.
Just some thoughts.
Gregg
Avoiding the difficulty of formulating a sound definition is cowardice in
the face of the enemy! Careful, Gregg, or they'll take away your license
to practice in academia! ;-)
I think it's important to do a better job about this definition, for two
reasons. First, it's important to show others what we've done if in fact we
fail to define it. It saves our posterity further wasted effort. If we
give up, we should give up loudly and in public! Second, we may succeed in
making a good definition, and in doing so clarify some matters that are
really practical, and not just theoretical. If it's any consolation, we
have similarly poor, multiple definitions of "disability", especially in the
context of technological accessibility.
So to begin, defining "accessibility" is not the same as identifying a
product as "accessible". The former is a theoretical construct; the latter
is a label. I agree that we can't label a product as accessible, because
products are nothing without their users and their user's purposes,
histories, situations, expectations, etc. Really -- products are lifeless,
meaningless crap without users. Truly accepting this principle is
remarkably difficult for those of us who want to keep addressing clear
technical problems, and in doing so keep ignoring the difficult, opaque,
human realities that are the only real barriers to success. I would be glad
to debate this in detail with anyone, but I don't think anyone really doubts
it. It's just that making progress on that front seems impossibly complex,
compared with writing kewl kode.
One way we could proceed is to identify a human purpose behind the encounter
with a product: "I want to set this timer to record a show so I can view it
later." We could then list all the steps the user would have to perform in
order to set the timer. These might include lifting and holding a remote
control, pointing it at the recorder, pressing certain buttons in a certain
order, etc. Each of these tasks imposes a certain requirement, skill level,
etc. We may be able to say that if any of those functional requirements is
too high for a given user, it is inaccessible to that user. This much is
clear, and seems correct: there is no disability outside of the user's
interaction with the product.
But can we say anything about the characteristic of the product without
referring to a specific user? Yes, if we're interested in understanding the
total social effect of "accessibility". We could get all demographic, and
say "the button-pushing step imposes a functional requirement for finger
dexterity that 11% of the potential population of users cannot meet". We
could put the whole sequence of steps up against all the dimensions of human
functioning and everything that is known about the distribution of human
abilities. We could make very cool visualizations of this, showing the
intersections of various human performance curves with the functional
requirements of the steps of operating the product.
We could certainly use it to compare products, and compare redundant paths
within each product's usage space. What if you could set the timer without
using the remote? Or if you could set it from a web interface? I think
developing such a tool could be a very useful enterprise. It would collect
and congeal various practical principles we already know about as rules of
thumb, such as "redundancy" and "adapt an interface from an environment of
high success into an environment of low success".
There are probably many such approaches that deserve study. It might be
easier to define inaccessibility than accessibility, for example....
One way of looking at "accessibility" is as a "raw material". What we
really care about is not "accessibility", it's "access". That is, our goal
is successful use by individuals with disabilities, a measurable outcome of
some sort: productivity, educational attainment, etc. At some point in the
process of implementing a technology by or for a person with a disability,
raw "accessibility" is converted into "access". Perhaps "accessibility" is
a measure of the efficiency of the conversion, or how automatic it is,
requiring no further intervention.
However, caring about "access" puts us in the position of permitting
individual accommodations or other interventions, rather than the
automatically successful use that is the supposed experience of non-disabled
users. Some of us may think that's not the right strategy to use, as it
reverts to a discredited model of disability that focuses on the person's
"inherent inability" rather than the interaction between the person and the
designed environment, and thus absolves the product's flawed design from
accountability. Nevertheless, I think that the relationship between
"accessibility" and "access" is a key part of understanding what TEITAC is
engaged in as an attempt to resolve the incompatibilities of certain
technological practicalities with a sense of the universal civil right of
full participation.
I hope others will participate in this dialogue.
***********
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
skype jimtobias
www.inclusive.com
From: McCarthy, Jim
Date: Fri, Nov 10 2006 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: Definition of accessibility
This is a most interesting discussion. To me merging Allen's desire to
define "accessible" using the language he proposes with Debbie's
recognition gleaned from Greg that meeting the guidelines does not
assure access to all would be a sensible way to address these issues. I
think the procurement folks will be concerned to know that they have met
their obligations or how to meet these. In my judgment, to say that
meeting subpart C offers acceptable baseline accessibility and that
greater access may e be possible is one way to do this.
**
James McCarthy
Director of Governmental affairs
National Federation of the Blind
1800 Johnson Street
Baltimore MD 21230
Phone: 410-659-9314 Extension 2240
Fax: 410-685-5653
Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Nov 10 2006 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: Definition of accessibility
I would suggest we not use the word 'accessible' and instead just use
'conformant" Products are considered conformant if they etc.
We already will have concerns from those advocating for language, learning
and cognitive disability provisions. Much that could be done in this area
are not things that could be in conformance requirements since it is not
possible to confirm that they have or have not been met. To say that our
guidelines define accessibility when there is so much that is not included
will only exacerbate the problem.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Deborah Buck
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:22 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definition of accessibility
I would be nervous about including any reference to environment. I think
that adding environment could potentially limit the applicability of the
standards. Just as we want the technical standards to support ongoing
development and emerging technology we should ensure that the provisions for
implementation aren't limited by including environment. The law sets the
parameters for the environment in which the products are used and identifies
those conditions where exemptions are appropriate. Some employees telework-
but I don't think its appropriate to add home environment or remote telework
sites- as the law stands if IT is being purchased it needs to conform.
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 4:08 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definition of accessibility
OK:
I wrote:
Items shall be considered accessible when the provisions from sub-part C of
this regulation are met, for the general office environment, and (insert
additional
environments if needed). We might possibly include some reference to public
or home environment.
Greg wrote:
So whatever definition we come up with - conformance to our guidelines
should not be defined as accessible. There is so much to do beyond what is
required
in our guidelines.
I agree that "pure" accessible is not fully met by meeting technical
standards, but meeting adequately sufficient functional performance
criteria, which may include conditional environmental or policy factors,
really should mean accessible for the set of people addressed in those
functional performance criteria. On the other hand we need to get usable
language for the purposes of this effort, not a definition for all
situations and potentials.
Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:33 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definition of accessibility
Hmmm
I guess the point I was trying to make is that items that meet our
provisions are not accessible.
These products meet some minimum accessibility standard but are not
accessible to many people.
So whatever definition we come up with - conformance to our guidelines
should not be defined as accessible. There is so much to do beyond what is
required in our guidelines.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:01 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definition of accessibility
So, how about:
Items shall be considered accessible when the provisions from sub-part C of
this regulation are met, for the general office environment, and (insert
additional environments if needed). We might possibly include some
reference to public or home environment.
Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:57 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definition of accessibility
The question has come up as to whether we should try to define
accessibility.
This comes up in many committees I have worked on.
The conclusion the other groups came up with was.
One really can't make products that are accessible.
One can make things accessible to a person in a situation.
One can't make things accessible to a person in all situations.
One can't make things accessible to all people.
So our guidelines are "minimum accessibility guidelines"
They include some things that make products more accessible but not
accessible.
So we shouldn't try to define products as being accessible.
--
The second reason to not define it is that at some point in the discussion
you end up saying "usable". This immediately triggers a discussion of
accessibility vs usability and things go south pretty fast from there.
--
Finally, unless we use the word "accessible" in one of the provisions in
some normative way - it doesn't need to be defined.
Just some thoughts.
Gregg
------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
From: Barrett, Don
Date: Fri, Nov 10 2006 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: Definition of accessibility
I couldn't agree more Gregg.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Friday, November 10, 2006 11:44 AM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definition of accessibility
I would suggest we not use the word 'accessible' and instead
just use 'conformant" Products are considered conformant if they
etc.
We already will have concerns from those advocating for
language, learning and cognitive disability provisions. Much that
could be done in this area are not things that could be in conformance
requirements since it is not possible to confirm that they have or have
not been met. To say that our guidelines define accessibility when
there is so much that is not included will only exacerbate the problem.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Deborah
Buck
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:22 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definition of
accessibility
I would be nervous about including any reference to
environment. I think that adding environment could potentially limit the
applicability of the standards. Just as we want the technical standards
to support ongoing development and emerging technology we should ensure
that the provisions for implementation aren't limited by including
environment. The law sets the parameters for the environment in which
the products are used and identifies those conditions where exemptions
are appropriate. Some employees telework- but I don't think its
appropriate to add home environment or remote telework sites- as the law
stands if IT is being purchased it needs to conform.
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman,
Allen
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 4:08 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definition of
accessibility
OK:
I wrote:
Items shall be considered accessible when the provisions
from sub-part C of this regulation are met, for the general office
environment, and (insert additional
environments if needed). We might possibly include some
reference to public or home environment.
Greg wrote:
So whatever definition we come up with - conformance to
our guidelines should not be defined as accessible. There is so much
to do beyond what is required
in our guidelines.
I agree that "pure" accessible is not fully met by
meeting technical standards, but meeting adequately sufficient
functional performance criteria, which may include conditional
environmental or policy factors, really should mean accessible for the
set of people addressed in those functional performance criteria. On
the other hand we need to get usable language for the purposes of this
effort, not a definition for all situations and potentials.
Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 3:33 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definition of
accessibility
Hmmm
I guess the point I was trying to make is that items
that meet our provisions are not accessible.
These products meet some minimum accessibility standard
but are not accessible to many people.
So whatever definition we come up with - conformance to
our guidelines should not be defined as accessible. There is so much
to do beyond what is required in our guidelines.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman,
Allen
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:01 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definition of
accessibility
So, how about:
Items shall be considered accessible when the
provisions from sub-part C of this regulation are met, for the general
office environment, and (insert additional environments if needed). We
might possibly include some reference to public or home environment.
Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 2:57 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definition of
accessibility
The question has come up as to whether we should
try to define accessibility.
This comes up in many committees I have worked
on.
The conclusion the other groups came up with
was.
One really can't make products that are
accessible.
One can make things accessible to a person in a
situation.
One can't make things accessible to a person in
all situations.
One can't make things accessible to all people.
So our guidelines are "minimum accessibility
guidelines"
They include some things that make products more
accessible but not accessible.
So we shouldn't try to define products as being
accessible.
--
The second reason to not define it is that at
some point in the discussion you end up saying "usable". This
immediately triggers a discussion of accessibility vs usability and
things go south pretty fast from there.
--
Finally, unless we use the word "accessible" in
one of the provisions in some normative way - it doesn't need to be
defined.
Just some thoughts.
Gregg
------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
<http://trace.wisc.edu/ <http://trace.wisc.edu/>
> FAX 608/262-8848
DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Mon, Nov 13 2006 5:55 AM
Subject: Re: Definition of accessibility
This approach works for me.
Allen Hoffman -- 202-447-0303
WebAIM is an initiative of:
