Thread Subject: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: mike paciello
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 10:05 AM
Subject: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Folks -

Please remember that today is the last day you can submit suggestions for
our February meeting agenda. Because I'm monitoring this specific
conversation, I'm going to be a nice guy and literally give you up to
midnight to submit suggestions! Thanks to everyone who have already sent
suggestions.

On a side note, several folks have inquired about the meeting location. That
decision has not been made by the Access Board. We appreciate that this is
critical to your travel arrangements. Tim Creagan has been advised.

Regards and thanks,

Mike


Mike Paciello
Founder & Principal, TPG
Tel: +1 603.882.4122 ext 103
Cell: +1 603.566.7713
e-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
web: www.paciellogroup.com <http://www.paciellogroup.com/>

From: Creagan Tim
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Hello All,

Re: site. We are looking at several possibilities, with the
specifications in mind (internet access, space, etc.) and we will
provide the information about the meeting location as soon as we have
it.



Tim



Timothy P. Creagan

Senior Accessibility Specialist

U.S. Access Board

1331 F Street, N.W.

Suite 1000

Washington, DC 20004-1111



202-272-0016 (V); 1-(800) 872-2253 (V)

202-272-0082 (TTY);1-800-993-2822 (TTY)

202-272-0081 (Fax)

= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =



"Thank you for your questions concerning section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1998. Section 508 authorizes the
Access Board to provide technical assistance to individuals and Federal
departments and agencies concerning the requirements of this section.
This technical assistance is intended solely as informal guidance; it is
not a determination of the legal rights or responsibilities of entities
subject to section 508."

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Seems like the attached thread indicates that we might not all be on the
same page with regard to the goal of the 508 and 255 standards. Is this
something that we should spend some time wrestling with at the February
TEITAC? Can the Access Board provided some direction here?

Andi

----- Forwarded by Andi Snow-Weaver/Austin/IBM on 01/04/2007 01:14 PM -----

"Randy Marsden
(Home)"
<randym@madentec. To
com> TEITAC self contained/closed
Sent by: products subcommittee
teitac-websoftwar < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >,
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = "'TEITAC Web/Software
itac.org Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
12/22/2006 10:51 cc
AM "'TEITAC General Interface
Accessibility Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Please respond Subject
toTEITAC Re: [teitac-websoftware]
Web/Software [teitac-closed] "closed software"
Subcommittee
<teitac-websoftwa
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
g>








Jim Tobias wrote:

What does "... works with AT" mean -- only current AT? We
should not be constrained by the current crop of AT. The goal
of the regs is to stimulate native accessibility in products
that don't have it right now, and to stimulate AT where native
accessibility is not feasible or reasonable.

I find this language disturbing. My impression was the goal of
the regs was to make mainstream technology more accessible to
people with disabilities � not necessarily to explicitly drive
built-in accessibility. Many people with disabilities prefer
to use their own AT, even when a product has its own built-in
accessibility. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor should
be. (Although the current wording of 508 tends to separate
them by using the word �or� in the functional performance
criteria � perhaps something we should look at). I think the
best situation is when both exist.�constrained by the current
crop of AT�. AT is evolving even as IT is. I think what has
been suggested for wording is something along the lines of
�works with readily available AT�. That doesn�t constrain the
regs to the current crop of AT � it leaves room for whatever AT
is developed in the future that becomes readily
available.-Randy MarsdenATIA



_______________________________________________teitac-closed mailing
list = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://list.teitac.org/mailman/listinfo/teitac-closed

_______________________________________________teitac-websoftware mailing
list = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://list.teitac.org/mailman/listinfo/teitac-websoftware
_______________________________________________
teitac-committee mailing list
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://list.teitac.org/mailman/listinfo/teitac-committee

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

I'd like to second this -- there is a significant need for the committee
to see a presentation that talks about current accessibility
architectures (Windows/Mac/Linux/WAI-ARIA) and how AT works with these.
I'm sure that representatives for the different OS's could work together
to present a talk that would help the committee deal with some important
decisions. I'd say that we should budget 60-90 minutes for this.

AWK

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Snow-Weaver
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 2:21 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items


Seems like the attached thread indicates that we might not all be on the
same page with regard to the goal of the 508 and 255 standards. Is this
something that we should spend some time wrestling with at the February
TEITAC? Can the Access Board provided some direction here?

Andi

----- Forwarded by Andi Snow-Weaver/Austin/IBM on 01/04/2007 01:14 PM
-----


"Randy Marsden

(Home)"

<randym@madentec.
To
com> TEITAC self contained/closed

Sent by: products subcommittee

teitac-websoftwar < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >,

= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = "'TEITAC Web/Software

itac.org Subcommittee'"


< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>

12/22/2006 10:51
cc
AM "'TEITAC General Interface

Accessibility Subcommittee'"

< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

Please respond
Subject
toTEITAC Re: [teitac-websoftware]

Web/Software [teitac-closed] "closed
software"
Subcommittee

<teitac-websoftwa

= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

g>











Jim Tobias wrote:

What does "... works with AT" mean -- only current AT? We
should not be constrained by the current crop of AT. The
goal
of the regs is to stimulate native accessibility in products
that don't have it right now, and to stimulate AT where
native
accessibility is not feasible or reasonable.

I find this language disturbing. My impression was the goal
of
the regs was to make mainstream technology more accessible
to
people with disabilities - not necessarily to explicitly
drive
built-in accessibility. Many people with disabilities
prefer
to use their own AT, even when a product has its own
built-in
accessibility. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor
should
be. (Although the current wording of 508 tends to separate
them by using the word "or" in the functional performance
criteria - perhaps something we should look at). I think
the
best situation is when both exist."constrained by the
current
crop of AT". AT is evolving even as IT is. I think what
has
been suggested for wording is something along the lines of
"works with readily available AT". That doesn't constrain
the
regs to the current crop of AT - it leaves room for whatever
AT
is developed in the future that becomes readily
available.-Randy MarsdenATIA

From: Laughton, Mary Frances: ICT
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

I agree that this presentation would be very useful to move the agenda forward.

Mary Frances Laughton
Industry Canada
--------------------------
Mary Frances Laughton
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
To: TEITAC Committee
Sent: Thu Jan 04 14:30:48 2007
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

I'd like to second this -- there is a significant need for the committee
to see a presentation that talks about current accessibility
architectures (Windows/Mac/Linux/WAI-ARIA) and how AT works with these.
I'm sure that representatives for the different OS's could work together
to present a talk that would help the committee deal with some important
decisions. I'd say that we should budget 60-90 minutes for this.

AWK

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Snow-Weaver
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 2:21 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items


Seems like the attached thread indicates that we might not all be on the
same page with regard to the goal of the 508 and 255 standards. Is this
something that we should spend some time wrestling with at the February
TEITAC? Can the Access Board provided some direction here?

Andi

----- Forwarded by Andi Snow-Weaver/Austin/IBM on 01/04/2007 01:14 PM
-----


"Randy Marsden

(Home)"

<randym@madentec.
To
com> TEITAC self contained/closed

Sent by: products subcommittee

teitac-websoftwar < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >,

= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = "'TEITAC Web/Software

itac.org Subcommittee'"


< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>

12/22/2006 10:51
cc
AM "'TEITAC General Interface

Accessibility Subcommittee'"

< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

Please respond
Subject
toTEITAC Re: [teitac-websoftware]

Web/Software [teitac-closed] "closed
software"
Subcommittee

<teitac-websoftwa

= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

g>











Jim Tobias wrote:

What does "... works with AT" mean -- only current AT? We
should not be constrained by the current crop of AT. The
goal
of the regs is to stimulate native accessibility in products
that don't have it right now, and to stimulate AT where
native
accessibility is not feasible or reasonable.

I find this language disturbing. My impression was the goal
of
the regs was to make mainstream technology more accessible
to
people with disabilities - not necessarily to explicitly
drive
built-in accessibility. Many people with disabilities
prefer
to use their own AT, even when a product has its own
built-in
accessibility. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor
should
be. (Although the current wording of 508 tends to separate
them by using the word "or" in the functional performance
criteria - perhaps something we should look at). I think
the
best situation is when both exist."constrained by the
current
crop of AT". AT is evolving even as IT is. I think what
has
been suggested for wording is something along the lines of
"works with readily available AT". That doesn't constrain
the
regs to the current crop of AT - it leaves room for whatever
AT
is developed in the future that becomes readily
available.-Randy MarsdenATIA

From: Laura Ruby
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

If we are going to bring in people to talk about architecture we need to
schedule with enough lead time so that members of TEITAC companies who
are not usually at the TEITAC but want to participate in this
conversation can make travel plans.

Laura Ruby
Director of Global Policy and Standards
Microsoft Accessible Technology Group
425-705-7098
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

From: Peter Korn
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Hi Mary, Andrew, Andi,

I would be happy to take part in making such a presentation on
accessibility architectures, and the way AT interoperates with them on
multiple platforms. Given the Software & Web subcommittee's discussions
around Accessibility APIs, I think this could be a very useful and
informative session.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> I agree that this presentation would be very useful to move the agenda
> forward.
>
> Mary Frances Laughton
> Industry Canada
> --------------------------
> Mary Frances Laughton
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> To: TEITAC Committee
> Sent: Thu Jan 04 14:30:48 2007
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items
>
> I'd like to second this -- there is a significant need for the committee
> to see a presentation that talks about current accessibility
> architectures (Windows/Mac/Linux/WAI-ARIA) and how AT works with these.
> I'm sure that representatives for the different OS's could work together
> to present a talk that would help the committee deal with some important
> decisions. I'd say that we should budget 60-90 minutes for this.
>
> AWK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
> Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 2:21 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items
>
>
> Seems like the attached thread indicates that we might not all be on the
> same page with regard to the goal of the 508 and 255 standards. Is this
> something that we should spend some time wrestling with at the February
> TEITAC? Can the Access Board provided some direction here?
>
> Andi
>
> ----- Forwarded by Andi Snow-Weaver/Austin/IBM on 01/04/2007 01:14 PM
> -----
>
>
> "Randy Marsden
>
> (Home)"
>
> <randym@madentec.
> To
> com> TEITAC self contained/closed
>
> Sent by: products subcommittee
>
> teitac-websoftwar < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >,
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = "'TEITAC Web/Software
>
> itac.org Subcommittee'"
>
>
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >
>
> 12/22/2006 10:51
> cc
> AM "'TEITAC General Interface
>
> Accessibility Subcommittee'"
>
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> Please respond
> Subject
> toTEITAC Re: [teitac-websoftware]
>
> Web/Software [teitac-closed] "closed
> software"
> Subcommittee
>
> <teitac-websoftwa
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> g>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jim Tobias wrote:
>
> What does "... works with AT" mean -- only current AT? We
> should not be constrained by the current crop of AT. The
> goal
> of the regs is to stimulate native accessibility in products
> that don't have it right now, and to stimulate AT where
> native
> accessibility is not feasible or reasonable.
>
> I find this language disturbing. My impression was the goal
> of
> the regs was to make mainstream technology more accessible
> to
> people with disabilities - not necessarily to explicitly
> drive
> built-in accessibility. Many people with disabilities
> prefer
> to use their own AT, even when a product has its own
> built-in
> accessibility. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor
> should
> be. (Although the current wording of 508 tends to separate
> them by using the word "or" in the functional performance
> criteria - perhaps something we should look at). I think
> the
> best situation is when both exist."constrained by the
> current
> crop of AT". AT is evolving even as IT is. I think what
> has
> been suggested for wording is something along the lines of
> "works with readily available AT". That doesn't constrain
> the
> regs to the current crop of AT - it leaves room for whatever
> AT
> is developed in the future that becomes readily
> available.-Randy MarsdenATIA
>
>
>
>

From: Laura Ruby
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

I would prefer to see a more general presentation by ATIA on how AT/IT
work together and the current state of the AT world. I don't think it's
appropriate to have a presentation on specific APIs, platforms and
architectures to the general TEITAC. The majority of us do not write
code.

Laura Ruby
Director of Global Policy and Standards
Microsoft Accessible Technology Group
425-705-7098
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter
Korn
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 11:56 AM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Hi Mary, Andrew, Andi,

I would be happy to take part in making such a presentation on
accessibility architectures, and the way AT interoperates with them on
multiple platforms. Given the Software & Web subcommittee's discussions

around Accessibility APIs, I think this could be a very useful and
informative session.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> I agree that this presentation would be very useful to move the agenda

> forward.
>
> Mary Frances Laughton
> Industry Canada
> --------------------------
> Mary Frances Laughton
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> To: TEITAC Committee
> Sent: Thu Jan 04 14:30:48 2007
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items
>
> I'd like to second this -- there is a significant need for the
committee
> to see a presentation that talks about current accessibility
> architectures (Windows/Mac/Linux/WAI-ARIA) and how AT works with
these.
> I'm sure that representatives for the different OS's could work
together
> to present a talk that would help the committee deal with some
important
> decisions. I'd say that we should budget 60-90 minutes for this.
>
> AWK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
> Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 2:21 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items
>
>
> Seems like the attached thread indicates that we might not all be on
the
> same page with regard to the goal of the 508 and 255 standards. Is
this
> something that we should spend some time wrestling with at the
February
> TEITAC? Can the Access Board provided some direction here?
>
> Andi
>
> ----- Forwarded by Andi Snow-Weaver/Austin/IBM on 01/04/2007 01:14 PM
> -----
>
>
> "Randy Marsden
>
> (Home)"
>
> <randym@madentec.
> To
> com> TEITAC self contained/closed
>
> Sent by: products subcommittee
>
> teitac-websoftwar
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >,
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = "'TEITAC Web/Software
>
> itac.org Subcommittee'"
>
>
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >
>
> 12/22/2006 10:51
> cc
> AM "'TEITAC General Interface
>
> Accessibility Subcommittee'"
>
>
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> Please respond
> Subject
> toTEITAC Re: [teitac-websoftware]
>
> Web/Software [teitac-closed] "closed
> software"
> Subcommittee
>
> <teitac-websoftwa
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> g>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jim Tobias wrote:
>
> What does "... works with AT" mean -- only current AT? We
> should not be constrained by the current crop of AT. The
> goal
> of the regs is to stimulate native accessibility in
products
> that don't have it right now, and to stimulate AT where
> native
> accessibility is not feasible or reasonable.
>
> I find this language disturbing. My impression was the
goal
> of
> the regs was to make mainstream technology more accessible
> to
> people with disabilities - not necessarily to explicitly
> drive
> built-in accessibility. Many people with disabilities
> prefer
> to use their own AT, even when a product has its own
> built-in
> accessibility. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor
> should
> be. (Although the current wording of 508 tends to
separate
> them by using the word "or" in the functional performance
> criteria - perhaps something we should look at). I think
> the
> best situation is when both exist."constrained by the
> current
> crop of AT". AT is evolving even as IT is. I think what
> has
> been suggested for wording is something along the lines of
> "works with readily available AT". That doesn't constrain
> the
> regs to the current crop of AT - it leaves room for
whatever
> AT
> is developed in the future that becomes readily
> available.-Randy MarsdenATIA
>
>
>
>

From: Jessica M. Brodey
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 2:05 PM
Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

ATIA has put in a request to do just such a presentation.

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Laura Ruby
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 3:36 PM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

I would prefer to see a more general presentation by ATIA on how AT/IT
work together and the current state of the AT world. I don't think it's
appropriate to have a presentation on specific APIs, platforms and
architectures to the general TEITAC. The majority of us do not write
code.

Laura Ruby
Director of Global Policy and Standards
Microsoft Accessible Technology Group
425-705-7098
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter
Korn
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 11:56 AM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Hi Mary, Andrew, Andi,

I would be happy to take part in making such a presentation on
accessibility architectures, and the way AT interoperates with them on
multiple platforms. Given the Software & Web subcommittee's discussions

around Accessibility APIs, I think this could be a very useful and
informative session.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> I agree that this presentation would be very useful to move the agenda

> forward.
>
> Mary Frances Laughton
> Industry Canada
> --------------------------
> Mary Frances Laughton
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> To: TEITAC Committee
> Sent: Thu Jan 04 14:30:48 2007
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items
>
> I'd like to second this -- there is a significant need for the
committee
> to see a presentation that talks about current accessibility
> architectures (Windows/Mac/Linux/WAI-ARIA) and how AT works with
these.
> I'm sure that representatives for the different OS's could work
together
> to present a talk that would help the committee deal with some
important
> decisions. I'd say that we should budget 60-90 minutes for this.
>
> AWK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
> Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 2:21 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items
>
>
> Seems like the attached thread indicates that we might not all be on
the
> same page with regard to the goal of the 508 and 255 standards. Is
this
> something that we should spend some time wrestling with at the
February
> TEITAC? Can the Access Board provided some direction here?
>
> Andi
>
> ----- Forwarded by Andi Snow-Weaver/Austin/IBM on 01/04/2007 01:14 PM
> -----
>
>
> "Randy Marsden
>
> (Home)"
>
> <randym@madentec.
> To
> com> TEITAC self contained/closed
>
> Sent by: products subcommittee
>
> teitac-websoftwar
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >,
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = "'TEITAC Web/Software
>
> itac.org Subcommittee'"
>
>
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >
>
> 12/22/2006 10:51
> cc
> AM "'TEITAC General Interface
>
> Accessibility Subcommittee'"
>
>
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> Please respond
> Subject
> toTEITAC Re: [teitac-websoftware]
>
> Web/Software [teitac-closed] "closed
> software"
> Subcommittee
>
> <teitac-websoftwa
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> g>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jim Tobias wrote:
>
> What does "... works with AT" mean -- only current AT? We
> should not be constrained by the current crop of AT. The
> goal
> of the regs is to stimulate native accessibility in
products
> that don't have it right now, and to stimulate AT where
> native
> accessibility is not feasible or reasonable.
>
> I find this language disturbing. My impression was the
goal
> of
> the regs was to make mainstream technology more accessible
> to
> people with disabilities - not necessarily to explicitly
> drive
> built-in accessibility. Many people with disabilities
> prefer
> to use their own AT, even when a product has its own
> built-in
> accessibility. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor
> should
> be. (Although the current wording of 508 tends to
separate
> them by using the word "or" in the functional performance
> criteria - perhaps something we should look at). I think
> the
> best situation is when both exist."constrained by the
> current
> crop of AT". AT is evolving even as IT is. I think what
> has
> been suggested for wording is something along the lines of
> "works with readily available AT". That doesn't constrain
> the
> regs to the current crop of AT - it leaves room for
whatever
> AT
> is developed in the future that becomes readily
> available.-Randy MarsdenATIA
>
>
>
>

From: mike paciello
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

I'm confirming that request. Randy sent it in last week.

-Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jessica M.
Brodey
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 4:01 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

ATIA has put in a request to do just such a presentation.

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Laura Ruby
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 3:36 PM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

I would prefer to see a more general presentation by ATIA on how AT/IT work
together and the current state of the AT world. I don't think it's
appropriate to have a presentation on specific APIs, platforms and
architectures to the general TEITAC. The majority of us do not write code.

Laura Ruby
Director of Global Policy and Standards
Microsoft Accessible Technology Group
425-705-7098
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 11:56 AM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Hi Mary, Andrew, Andi,

I would be happy to take part in making such a presentation on accessibility
architectures, and the way AT interoperates with them on multiple platforms.
Given the Software & Web subcommittee's discussions

around Accessibility APIs, I think this could be a very useful and
informative session.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> I agree that this presentation would be very useful to move the agenda

> forward.
>
> Mary Frances Laughton
> Industry Canada
> --------------------------
> Mary Frances Laughton
> Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> To: TEITAC Committee
> Sent: Thu Jan 04 14:30:48 2007
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items
>
> I'd like to second this -- there is a significant need for the
committee
> to see a presentation that talks about current accessibility
> architectures (Windows/Mac/Linux/WAI-ARIA) and how AT works with
these.
> I'm sure that representatives for the different OS's could work
together
> to present a talk that would help the committee deal with some
important
> decisions. I'd say that we should budget 60-90 minutes for this.
>
> AWK
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
> Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 2:21 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items
>
>
> Seems like the attached thread indicates that we might not all be on
the
> same page with regard to the goal of the 508 and 255 standards. Is
this
> something that we should spend some time wrestling with at the
February
> TEITAC? Can the Access Board provided some direction here?
>
> Andi
>
> ----- Forwarded by Andi Snow-Weaver/Austin/IBM on 01/04/2007 01:14 PM
> -----
>
>
> "Randy Marsden
>
> (Home)"
>
> <randym@madentec.
> To
> com> TEITAC self contained/closed
>
> Sent by: products subcommittee
>
> teitac-websoftwar
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >,
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = "'TEITAC Web/Software
>
> itac.org Subcommittee'"
>
>
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >
>
> 12/22/2006 10:51
> cc
> AM "'TEITAC General Interface
>
> Accessibility Subcommittee'"
>
>
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> Please respond
> Subject
> toTEITAC Re: [teitac-websoftware]
>
> Web/Software [teitac-closed] "closed
> software"
> Subcommittee
>
> <teitac-websoftwa
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> g>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Jim Tobias wrote:
>
> What does "... works with AT" mean -- only current AT? We
> should not be constrained by the current crop of AT. The
> goal
> of the regs is to stimulate native accessibility in
products
> that don't have it right now, and to stimulate AT where
> native
> accessibility is not feasible or reasonable.
>
> I find this language disturbing. My impression was the
goal
> of
> the regs was to make mainstream technology more accessible
> to
> people with disabilities - not necessarily to explicitly
> drive
> built-in accessibility. Many people with disabilities
> prefer
> to use their own AT, even when a product has its own
> built-in
> accessibility. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor
> should
> be. (Although the current wording of 508 tends to
separate
> them by using the word "or" in the functional performance
> criteria - perhaps something we should look at). I think
> the
> best situation is when both exist."constrained by the
> current
> crop of AT". AT is evolving even as IT is. I think what
> has
> been suggested for wording is something along the lines of
> "works with readily available AT". That doesn't constrain
> the
> regs to the current crop of AT - it leaves room for
whatever
> AT
> is developed in the future that becomes readily
> available.-Randy MarsdenATIA
>
>
>
>

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Andi,
The context you describe is what I envision being helpful broadly, so
I'm glad that you agree. I'm not envisioning a review of the proposal
under discussion in web/software at all. The presentation I'm
envisioning also touches on general interface and closed product
decisioning, and will help establish a common understanding that is
desparately needed.

AWK



-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Snow-Weaver
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 3:49 PM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Peter and Andrew,

A presenation on how AT interoperates with IT could be very helpful to
the TEITAC as long as it is in the context of coming to consensus on the
goals of the standards. But it should be at a very general level. For
example, in a desktop environment, an operating system has
responsibility x, y, z, an application has responsibility a, b, and c,
and an AT has responsibility 1, 2, 3, etc. I don't think that a
presentation on the different operating system architectures is right
for the TEITAC, lest the discussion degrade into a debate over which one
is best.

With regard to the API proposal, it is premature to discuss this at the
TEITAC since the Web and Software subcommittee is not in agreement on it
yet. It is inappropriate for subcommittee proposals to be discussed at
the TEITAC until the subcommittee is ready to do that. Curtis and I will
present the work of the subcommittee, as approved by the subcommittee.
If the API proposal has advanced sufficiently by the time of the
February TEITAC meeting, we will include it in our report and may, in
fact, ask you and Andrew to present the API proposal as part of the
report. Until the subcommittee approves, however, Curtis and I do not
support the API proposal being included on the agenda.

Andi




Peter Korn

<Peter.Korn@Sun.C

OM>
To
Sent by: TEITAC Committee

teitac-committee-
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
cc
ac.org


Subject
Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder:

01/04/2007 01:55 Request for Agenda Items

PM





Please respond

to
Committee

<teitac-committee

@list.teitac.org>









Hi Mary, Andrew, Andi,
presentation on
accessibility architectures, and the way AT interoperates with them on
multiple platforms. Given the Software & Web subcommittee's discussions
around Accessibility APIs, I think this could be a very useful and
informative session.


Regards,

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 2:30 PM
Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Peter and Andrew,

A presenation on how AT interoperates with IT could be very helpful to the
TEITAC as long as it is in the context of coming to consensus on the goals
of the standards. But it should be at a very general level. For example, in
a desktop environment, an operating system has responsibility x, y, z, an
application has responsibility a, b, and c, and an AT has responsibility 1,
2, 3, etc. I don't think that a presentation on the different operating
system architectures is right for the TEITAC, lest the discussion degrade
into a debate over which one is best.

With regard to the API proposal, it is premature to discuss this at the
TEITAC since the Web and Software subcommittee is not in agreement on it
yet. It is inappropriate for subcommittee proposals to be discussed at the
TEITAC until the subcommittee is ready to do that. Curtis and I will
present the work of the subcommittee, as approved by the subcommittee. If
the API proposal has advanced sufficiently by the time of the February
TEITAC meeting, we will include it in our report and may, in fact, ask you
and Andrew to present the API proposal as part of the report. Until the
subcommittee approves, however, Curtis and I do not support the API
proposal being included on the agenda.

Andi



Peter Korn
<Peter.Korn@Sun.C
OM> To
Sent by: TEITAC Committee
teitac-committee- < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = cc
ac.org
Subject
Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder:
01/04/2007 01:55 Request for Agenda Items
PM


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






Hi Mary, Andrew, Andi,
presentation on
accessibility architectures, and the way AT interoperates with them on
multiple platforms. Given the Software & Web subcommittee's discussions
around Accessibility APIs, I think this could be a very useful and
informative session.


Regards,

From: Peter Korn
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Hi Andi,

Thank you for making these points. I completely agree that the specific
Accessibility API proposal being reviewed in the Web & Software
subcommittee should remain within the purview of that subcommittee until
it is finished there - and then reported on to TEITAC as a whole via
subcommittee reporting. I am also in complete agreement that any
presentation on AT - IT interoperability should be platform neutral and
technology agnostic. I don't see any value in a comparison or debate
about "which is best" at TEITAC.

That said, exposure of accessibility information is key to multiple
parts of the technical standards, and as we've seen from the Web &
Software subcommittee the work taking place in industry in OS
accessibility APIs and in the W3C on WAI-ARIA suggest a general
consensus on a high level approach to addressing accessibility going
forward. Given the number of places in the technical standards
potentially impacted by this work, I agree that a general presentation
on this approach to AT-IT interoperability is in scope and helpful.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> Peter and Andrew,
>
> A presenation on how AT interoperates with IT could be very helpful to the
> TEITAC as long as it is in the context of coming to consensus on the goals
> of the standards. But it should be at a very general level. For example, in
> a desktop environment, an operating system has responsibility x, y, z, an
> application has responsibility a, b, and c, and an AT has responsibility 1,
> 2, 3, etc. I don't think that a presentation on the different operating
> system architectures is right for the TEITAC, lest the discussion degrade
> into a debate over which one is best.
>
> With regard to the API proposal, it is premature to discuss this at the
> TEITAC since the Web and Software subcommittee is not in agreement on it
> yet. It is inappropriate for subcommittee proposals to be discussed at the
> TEITAC until the subcommittee is ready to do that. Curtis and I will
> present the work of the subcommittee, as approved by the subcommittee. If
> the API proposal has advanced sufficiently by the time of the February
> TEITAC meeting, we will include it in our report and may, in fact, ask you
> and Andrew to present the API proposal as part of the report. Until the
> subcommittee approves, however, Curtis and I do not support the API
> proposal being included on the agenda.
>
> Andi
>
>
>
> Peter Korn
> <Peter.Korn@Sun.C
> OM> To
> Sent by: TEITAC Committee
> teitac-committee- < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = cc
> ac.org
> Subject
> Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder:
> 01/04/2007 01:55 Request for Agenda Items
> PM
>
>
> Please respond
> to
> Committee
> <teitac-committee
> @list.teitac.org>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi Mary, Andrew, Andi,
> presentation on
> accessibility architectures, and the way AT interoperates with them on
> multiple platforms. Given the Software & Web subcommittee's discussions
> around Accessibility APIs, I think this could be a very useful and
> informative session.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 2:45 PM
Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Jim,

No, there is no consensus yet that there should be OS standards. However,
in the context of a general discussion on IT-AT interoperability, I think
it is appropriate to discuss how these responsibilities are generally
divided in the current environment.

Andi




"Jim Tobias"
<tobias@inclusive
.com> To
Sent by: "'TEITAC Committee'"
teitac-committee- < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = cc
ac.org
Subject
Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder:
01/04/2007 03:32 Request for Agenda Items
PM


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






Andi wrote:
environment, an operating system has responsibility x, y, z,
an application has responsibility a, b, and c, and an AT has
responsibility 1, 2, 3, etc. "
a presentation on AT and
should be standards
standards on
OSs.
list
http://list.teitac.org/mailman/listinfo/teitac-committee

From: mike paciello
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Thanks to all for the thorough discussion on this topic. I believe we are in
agreement that a general presentation on AT-IT interoperability should be on
the February agenda. I want to confirm that Randy will cover this as part of
his presentation on AT.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 4:18 PM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Hi Andi,

Thank you for making these points. I completely agree that the specific
Accessibility API proposal being reviewed in the Web & Software subcommittee
should remain within the purview of that subcommittee until it is finished
there - and then reported on to TEITAC as a whole via subcommittee
reporting. I am also in complete agreement that any presentation on AT - IT
interoperability should be platform neutral and technology agnostic. I
don't see any value in a comparison or debate about "which is best" at
TEITAC.

That said, exposure of accessibility information is key to multiple parts of
the technical standards, and as we've seen from the Web & Software
subcommittee the work taking place in industry in OS accessibility APIs and
in the W3C on WAI-ARIA suggest a general consensus on a high level approach
to addressing accessibility going forward. Given the number of places in
the technical standards potentially impacted by this work, I agree that a
general presentation on this approach to AT-IT interoperability is in scope
and helpful.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> Peter and Andrew,
>
> A presenation on how AT interoperates with IT could be very helpful to
> the TEITAC as long as it is in the context of coming to consensus on
> the goals of the standards. But it should be at a very general level.
> For example, in a desktop environment, an operating system has
> responsibility x, y, z, an application has responsibility a, b, and c,
> and an AT has responsibility 1, 2, 3, etc. I don't think that a
> presentation on the different operating system architectures is right
> for the TEITAC, lest the discussion degrade into a debate over which one
is best.
>
> With regard to the API proposal, it is premature to discuss this at
> the TEITAC since the Web and Software subcommittee is not in agreement
> on it yet. It is inappropriate for subcommittee proposals to be
> discussed at the TEITAC until the subcommittee is ready to do that.
> Curtis and I will present the work of the subcommittee, as approved by
> the subcommittee. If the API proposal has advanced sufficiently by the
> time of the February TEITAC meeting, we will include it in our report
> and may, in fact, ask you and Andrew to present the API proposal as
> part of the report. Until the subcommittee approves, however, Curtis
> and I do not support the API proposal being included on the agenda.
>
> Andi
>
>
>

> Peter Korn

> <Peter.Korn@Sun.C

> OM> To

> Sent by: TEITAC Committee

> teitac-committee- < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = cc

> ac.org

> Subject

> Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder:

> 01/04/2007 01:55 Request for Agenda Items

> PM

>

>

> Please respond

> to
> Committee

> <teitac-committee

> @list.teitac.org>

>

>

>
>
>
>
> Hi Mary, Andrew, Andi,
> presentation on
> accessibility architectures, and the way AT interoperates with them on
> multiple platforms. Given the Software & Web subcommittee's
> discussions around Accessibility APIs, I think this could be a very
> useful and informative session.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Andi wrote:

"For example, in a desktop
environment, an operating system has responsibility x, y, z,
an application has responsibility a, b, and c, and an AT has
responsibility 1, 2, 3, etc. "

I know this was in the context of describing a presentation on AT and
IT, but I'm curious: is there consensus that there should be standards
on OS responsibilities? The current 508 imposes no standards on OSs.

From: mike paciello
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Seems that there may confusion on my question regarding who should give this
presentation on AT-IT Interoperability. Therefore, I'll revise my request:
Who is going to give this presentation? And can I request an estimated time
allotment.

Thanks very much,

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: mike paciello [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 4:42 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: RE: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Thanks to all for the thorough discussion on this topic. I believe we are in
agreement that a general presentation on AT-IT interoperability should be on
the February agenda. I want to confirm that Randy will cover this as part of
his presentation on AT.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 4:18 PM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Hi Andi,

Thank you for making these points. I completely agree that the specific
Accessibility API proposal being reviewed in the Web & Software subcommittee
should remain within the purview of that subcommittee until it is finished
there - and then reported on to TEITAC as a whole via subcommittee
reporting. I am also in complete agreement that any presentation on AT - IT
interoperability should be platform neutral and technology agnostic. I
don't see any value in a comparison or debate about "which is best" at
TEITAC.

That said, exposure of accessibility information is key to multiple parts of
the technical standards, and as we've seen from the Web & Software
subcommittee the work taking place in industry in OS accessibility APIs and
in the W3C on WAI-ARIA suggest a general consensus on a high level approach
to addressing accessibility going forward. Given the number of places in
the technical standards potentially impacted by this work, I agree that a
general presentation on this approach to AT-IT interoperability is in scope
and helpful.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> Peter and Andrew,
>
> A presenation on how AT interoperates with IT could be very helpful to
> the TEITAC as long as it is in the context of coming to consensus on
> the goals of the standards. But it should be at a very general level.
> For example, in a desktop environment, an operating system has
> responsibility x, y, z, an application has responsibility a, b, and c,
> and an AT has responsibility 1, 2, 3, etc. I don't think that a
> presentation on the different operating system architectures is right
> for the TEITAC, lest the discussion degrade into a debate over which one
is best.
>
> With regard to the API proposal, it is premature to discuss this at
> the TEITAC since the Web and Software subcommittee is not in agreement
> on it yet. It is inappropriate for subcommittee proposals to be
> discussed at the TEITAC until the subcommittee is ready to do that.
> Curtis and I will present the work of the subcommittee, as approved by
> the subcommittee. If the API proposal has advanced sufficiently by the
> time of the February TEITAC meeting, we will include it in our report
> and may, in fact, ask you and Andrew to present the API proposal as
> part of the report. Until the subcommittee approves, however, Curtis
> and I do not support the API proposal being included on the agenda.
>
> Andi
>
>
>

> Peter Korn

> <Peter.Korn@Sun.C

> OM> To

> Sent by: TEITAC Committee

> teitac-committee- < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = cc

> ac.org

> Subject

> Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder:

> 01/04/2007 01:55 Request for Agenda Items

> PM

>

>

> Please respond

> to
> Committee

> <teitac-committee

> @list.teitac.org>

>

>

>
>
>
>
> Hi Mary, Andrew, Andi,
> presentation on
> accessibility architectures, and the way AT interoperates with them on
> multiple platforms. Given the Software & Web subcommittee's
> discussions around Accessibility APIs, I think this could be a very
> useful and informative session.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>

From: Randy Marsden
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 5:05 PM
Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Yes. AT-IT interoperability will be part of my proposed presentation.

I see value, however, in involving our IT counterparts in the presentation.
Perhaps the session on ³AT-IT Interoperability² should be an example of how
AT and IT can work together. :-)

-Randy, ATIA
>
> From: "mike paciello" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Organization: TPG
> Reply-To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = , TEITAC Committee
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 16:42:29 -0500
> To: "'TEITAC Committee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items
>

> Thanks to all for the thorough discussion on this topic. I believe we are in
> agreement that a general presentation on AT-IT interoperability should be on
> the February agenda. I want to confirm that Randy will cover this as part of
> his presentation on AT.
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn
> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 4:18 PM
> To: TEITAC Committee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items
>
> Hi Andi,
>
> Thank you for making these points. I completely agree that the specific
> Accessibility API proposal being reviewed in the Web & Software subcommittee
> should remain within the purview of that subcommittee until it is finished
> there - and then reported on to TEITAC as a whole via subcommittee
> reporting. I am also in complete agreement that any presentation on AT - IT
> interoperability should be platform neutral and technology agnostic. I
> don't see any value in a comparison or debate about "which is best" at
> TEITAC.
>
> That said, exposure of accessibility information is key to multiple parts of
> the technical standards, and as we've seen from the Web & Software
> subcommittee the work taking place in industry in OS accessibility APIs and
> in the W3C on WAI-ARIA suggest a general consensus on a high level approach
> to addressing accessibility going forward. Given the number of places in
> the technical standards potentially impacted by this work, I agree that a
> general presentation on this approach to AT-IT interoperability is in scope
> and helpful.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
>> > Peter and Andrew,
>> >
>> > A presenation on how AT interoperates with IT could be very helpful to
>> > the TEITAC as long as it is in the context of coming to consensus on
>> > the goals of the standards. But it should be at a very general level.
>> > For example, in a desktop environment, an operating system has
>> > responsibility x, y, z, an application has responsibility a, b, and c,
>> > and an AT has responsibility 1, 2, 3, etc. I don't think that a
>> > presentation on the different operating system architectures is right
>> > for the TEITAC, lest the discussion degrade into a debate over which one
> is best.
>> >
>> > With regard to the API proposal, it is premature to discuss this at
>> > the TEITAC since the Web and Software subcommittee is not in agreement
>> > on it yet. It is inappropriate for subcommittee proposals to be
>> > discussed at the TEITAC until the subcommittee is ready to do that.
>> > Curtis and I will present the work of the subcommittee, as approved by
>> > the subcommittee. If the API proposal has advanced sufficiently by the
>> > time of the February TEITAC meeting, we will include it in our report
>> > and may, in fact, ask you and Andrew to present the API proposal as
>> > part of the report. Until the subcommittee approves, however, Curtis
>> > and I do not support the API proposal being included on the agenda.
>> >
>> > Andi
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>> > Peter Korn
>
>> > <Peter.Korn@Sun.C
>
>> > OM> To
>
>> > Sent by: TEITAC Committee
>
>> > teitac-committee- < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = cc
>
>> > ac.org
>
>> > Subject
>
>> > Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder:
>
>> > 01/04/2007 01:55 Request for Agenda Items
>
>> > PM
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> > Please respond
>
>> > to
>> > Committee
>
>> > <teitac-committee
>
>> > @list.teitac.org>
>
>> >
>
>> >
>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Hi Mary, Andrew, Andi,
>> > presentation on
>> > accessibility architectures, and the way AT interoperates with them on
>> > multiple platforms. Given the Software & Web subcommittee's
>> > discussions around Accessibility APIs, I think this could be a very
>> > useful and informative session.
>> >
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> >
>> >

From: Larry Goldberg
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 8:40 PM
Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Great answer Randy!

Here's a "me-too" in agreement with Peter Korn's comment:

" Given the number of places in the technical standards
potentially impacted by this work, I agree that a general presentation
on this approach to AT-IT interoperability is in scope and helpful. "

- Larry


Randy Marsden wrote:

> Yes. AT-IT interoperability will be part of my proposed presentation.
>
> I see value, however, in involving our IT counterparts in the presentation.
> Perhaps the session on ³AT-IT Interoperability² should be an example of how
> AT and IT can work together. :-)
>
> -Randy, ATIA
>>
>> From: "mike paciello" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Organization: TPG
>> Reply-To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = , TEITAC Committee
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 16:42:29 -0500
>> To: "'TEITAC Committee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items
>>
>
>> Thanks to all for the thorough discussion on this topic. I believe we are in
>> agreement that a general presentation on AT-IT interoperability should be on
>> the February agenda. I want to confirm that Randy will cover this as part of
>> his presentation on AT.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn
>> Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 4:18 PM
>> To: TEITAC Committee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items
>>
>> Hi Andi,
>>
>> Thank you for making these points. I completely agree that the specific
>> Accessibility API proposal being reviewed in the Web & Software subcommittee
>> should remain within the purview of that subcommittee until it is finished
>> there - and then reported on to TEITAC as a whole via subcommittee
>> reporting. I am also in complete agreement that any presentation on AT - IT
>> interoperability should be platform neutral and technology agnostic. I
>> don't see any value in a comparison or debate about "which is best" at
>> TEITAC.
>>
>> That said, exposure of accessibility information is key to multiple parts of
>> the technical standards, and as we've seen from the Web & Software
>> subcommittee the work taking place in industry in OS accessibility APIs and
>> in the W3C on WAI-ARIA suggest a general consensus on a high level approach
>> to addressing accessibility going forward. Given the number of places in
>> the technical standards potentially impacted by this work, I agree that a
>> general presentation on this approach to AT-IT interoperability is in scope
>> and helpful.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Peter Korn
>> Accessibility Architect,
>> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>>
>>>> Peter and Andrew,
>>>>
>>>> A presenation on how AT interoperates with IT could be very helpful to
>>>> the TEITAC as long as it is in the context of coming to consensus on
>>>> the goals of the standards. But it should be at a very general level.
>>>> For example, in a desktop environment, an operating system has
>>>> responsibility x, y, z, an application has responsibility a, b, and c,
>>>> and an AT has responsibility 1, 2, 3, etc. I don't think that a
>>>> presentation on the different operating system architectures is right
>>>> for the TEITAC, lest the discussion degrade into a debate over which one
>> is best.
>>>>
>>>> With regard to the API proposal, it is premature to discuss this at
>>>> the TEITAC since the Web and Software subcommittee is not in agreement
>>>> on it yet. It is inappropriate for subcommittee proposals to be
>>>> discussed at the TEITAC until the subcommittee is ready to do that.
>>>> Curtis and I will present the work of the subcommittee, as approved by
>>>> the subcommittee. If the API proposal has advanced sufficiently by the
>>>> time of the February TEITAC meeting, we will include it in our report
>>>> and may, in fact, ask you and Andrew to present the API proposal as
>>>> part of the report. Until the subcommittee approves, however, Curtis
>>>> and I do not support the API proposal being included on the agenda.
>>>>
>>>> Andi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Peter Korn
>>
>>>> <Peter.Korn@Sun.C
>>
>>>> OM> To
>>
>>>> Sent by: TEITAC Committee
>>
>>>> teitac-committee- < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>
>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = cc
>>
>>>> ac.org
>>
>>>> Subject
>>
>>>> Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder:
>>
>>>> 01/04/2007 01:55 Request for Agenda Items
>>
>>>> PM
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>> Please respond
>>
>>>> to
>>>> Committee
>>
>>>> <teitac-committee
>>
>>>> @list.teitac.org>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Mary, Andrew, Andi,
>>>> presentation on
>>>> accessibility architectures, and the way AT interoperates with them on
>>>> multiple platforms. Given the Software & Web subcommittee's
>>>> discussions around Accessibility APIs, I think this could be a very
>>>> useful and informative session.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

From: tom Wlodkowski
Date: Fri, Jan 05 2007 6:10 AM
Subject: Re: Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda ItemsPerhaps we can consider a panel discussion for this issue?

I agree that IT and AT should be represented.

Tom

Tom Wlodkowski
Director of Accessibility
AOL LLC
Phone: 703-265-1999
E-mail: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
----- Original Message -----
From: Randy Marsden
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = , TEITAC Committee
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 7:00 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items


Yes. AT-IT interoperability will be part of my proposed presentation.

I see value, however, in involving our IT counterparts in the presentation. Perhaps the session on "AT-IT Interoperability" should be an example of how AT and IT can work together. :-)

-Randy, ATIA


From: "mike paciello" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Organization: TPG
Reply-To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = , TEITAC Committee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 16:42:29 -0500
To: "'TEITAC Committee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items




Thanks to all for the thorough discussion on this topic. I believe we are in
agreement that a general presentation on AT-IT interoperability should be on
the February agenda. I want to confirm that Randy will cover this as part of
his presentation on AT.

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 4:18 PM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder: Request for Agenda Items

Hi Andi,

Thank you for making these points. I completely agree that the specific
Accessibility API proposal being reviewed in the Web & Software subcommittee
should remain within the purview of that subcommittee until it is finished
there - and then reported on to TEITAC as a whole via subcommittee
reporting. I am also in complete agreement that any presentation on AT - IT
interoperability should be platform neutral and technology agnostic. I
don't see any value in a comparison or debate about "which is best" at
TEITAC.

That said, exposure of accessibility information is key to multiple parts of
the technical standards, and as we've seen from the Web & Software
subcommittee the work taking place in industry in OS accessibility APIs and
in the W3C on WAI-ARIA suggest a general consensus on a high level approach
to addressing accessibility going forward. Given the number of places in
the technical standards potentially impacted by this work, I agree that a
general presentation on this approach to AT-IT interoperability is in scope
and helpful.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> Peter and Andrew,
>
> A presenation on how AT interoperates with IT could be very helpful to
> the TEITAC as long as it is in the context of coming to consensus on
> the goals of the standards. But it should be at a very general level.
> For example, in a desktop environment, an operating system has
> responsibility x, y, z, an application has responsibility a, b, and c,
> and an AT has responsibility 1, 2, 3, etc. I don't think that a
> presentation on the different operating system architectures is right
> for the TEITAC, lest the discussion degrade into a debate over which one
is best.
>
> With regard to the API proposal, it is premature to discuss this at
> the TEITAC since the Web and Software subcommittee is not in agreement
> on it yet. It is inappropriate for subcommittee proposals to be
> discussed at the TEITAC until the subcommittee is ready to do that.
> Curtis and I will present the work of the subcommittee, as approved by
> the subcommittee. If the API proposal has advanced sufficiently by the
> time of the February TEITAC meeting, we will include it in our report
> and may, in fact, ask you and Andrew to present the API proposal as
> part of the report. Until the subcommittee approves, however, Curtis
> and I do not support the API proposal being included on the agenda.
>
> Andi
>
>
>

> Peter Korn

> <Peter.Korn@Sun.C

> OM> To

> Sent by: TEITAC Committee

> teitac-committee- < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = cc

> ac.org

> Subject

> Re: [teitac-committee] Reminder:

> 01/04/2007 01:55 Request for Agenda Items

> PM

>

>

> Please respond

> to
> Committee

> <teitac-committee

> @list.teitac.org>

>

>

>
>
>
>
> Hi Mary, Andrew, Andi,
> presentation on
> accessibility architectures, and the way AT interoperates with them on
> multiple platforms. Given the Software & Web subcommittee's
> discussions around Accessibility APIs, I think this could be a very
> useful and informative session.
>
>
> Regards,
>
>
>