Thread Subject: Re: "Supported by AT"

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Thu, Jan 04 2007 3:55 PM
Subject: Re: "Supported by AT"

Gregg,

You are missing another option. Well allow technology to be used
that supports the largest audience possible through the use of a
standards approach.

The role of standards is to make critical mass out of technologies
to allow everyone to participate. Our USPS policy includes the
requirement for internal formats to be allowed that aren't allowed
publicly, simply because we can accommodate the end-user internally.
This is your "scenario 2". But we aren't going to purchase
WizzyWigSoftware 8.0 for everyone in the public. Thus we find the most
common open format to release the data for public use. The additional
benefit of this allows for users to use the information in ways we
didn't design; OpenOffice, Linux, Solaris, OS X, on a cell phone - we
don't have to figure out how access will happen. We just have to allow
the data to be manipulated and flow into information. Open standards
help us build critical mass to allow consumers (the public) and
employees to access information using standard tools.

Dare I say this issue must be addressed by the Access Board in the
form of "document accessibility"?

I look forward to the discussion!

Regards,


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

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 1:52 AM
To: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee';
'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'; 'TEITAC
Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-general]
[teitac-websoftware]"Supported by AT"



This is a very important and tricky topic. We have two
situations/choices -- neither of which is tolerable. (and a third
which fails 508 and standards)..





1) we don't allow any technology to be used that isn't
supported by the AT being used by everyone (including people with very
old AT)

a. this isn't tolerable because it holds back technology
progress

2) we allow technology to be used even if only supported by
the latest most expensive AT

a. this is OK for government employees if the government
commits to providing this. In fact is should be just fine.

b. This isn't tolerable for public information. It
restricts public information to only those who are rich or who have a
company (job) to pay for it for them. It could leave 1/3 or more
without access.



3) we allow technology to be used even if only supported by
Future AT

a. not being accessible except for AT that doesn't exist -
doesn't make the product accessible to people with disabilities. So it
fails the performance criteria of the standards and the intent and whole
reason for 508





Since 1 and 2 are both not logical - and #3 fails 508 intent
and wording - we need to find a way to bring up the bottom.
However, that is outside of our guidelines process. So what we need to
do is to write the guidelines so that brining the bottom up yields
instant reward to all. And that not we don't write them so that we can
just walk away from those at the bottom and still 'conform'. And then
work outside of this process to address the problem - rather than write
things so that we can ignore it.





Lots to think about.






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

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Jan 07 2007 7:45 PM
Subject: Re: "Supported by AT"

The case you mention is a subset of the ones listed.



If you are using a technology that is supported by everyone - then you are
ok - but you are usually using an older technology standard - or a new one
that is backward compatible.



If you are using a brand new technology standard, then it often isn't
accessible to people who have disabilities who have anything but the latest
and most expensive AT.



Being a standard doesn't make it accessible. It certainly makes it easier
for general AT to get the information to be compatible but they don't have
the resources to support a fraction of the new tech standards being
released, and there is usually a long delay as well.



Your dual approach of using different standards for internal and external is
good.




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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Robinson, Norman
B - Washington, DC
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 4:46 PM
To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee; TEITAC General
Interface Accessibility Subcommittee; TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-general] [teitac-websoftware]"Supported
by AT"

Gregg,



You are missing another option. Well allow technology to be used that
supports the largest audience possible through the use of a standards
approach.



The role of standards is to make critical mass out of technologies to
allow everyone to participate. Our USPS policy includes the requirement for
internal formats to be allowed that aren't allowed publicly, simply because
we can accommodate the end-user internally. This is your "scenario 2". But
we aren't going to purchase WizzyWigSoftware 8.0 for everyone in the public.
Thus we find the most common open format to release the data for public use.
The additional benefit of this allows for users to use the information in
ways we didn't design; OpenOffice, Linux, Solaris, OS X, on a cell phone -
we don't have to figure out how access will happen. We just have to allow
the data to be manipulated and flow into information. Open standards help us
build critical mass to allow consumers (the public) and employees to access
information using standard tools.



Dare I say this issue must be addressed by the Access Board in the form
of "document accessibility"?



I look forward to the discussion!



Regards,





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

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, January 04, 2007 1:52 AM
To: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC self
contained/closed products subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-general] [teitac-websoftware]"Supported
by AT"

This is a very important and tricky topic. We have two
situations/choices -- neither of which is tolerable. (and a third
which fails 508 and standards)..





1) we don't allow any technology to be used that isn't supported by the
AT being used by everyone (including people with very old AT)

a. this isn't tolerable because it holds back technology progress

2) we allow technology to be used even if only supported by the latest
most expensive AT

a. this is OK for government employees if the government commits to
providing this. In fact is should be just fine.

b. This isn't tolerable for public information. It restricts public
information to only those who are rich or who have a company (job) to pay
for it for them. It could leave 1/3 or more without access.



3) we allow technology to be used even if only supported by Future AT

a. not being accessible except for AT that doesn't exist - doesn't
make the product accessible to people with disabilities. So it fails the
performance criteria of the standards and the intent and whole reason for
508





Since 1 and 2 are both not logical - and #3 fails 508 intent and wording
- we need to find a way to bring up the bottom. However, that is outside
of our guidelines process. So what we need to do is to write the guidelines
so that brining the bottom up yields instant reward to all. And that not
we don't write them so that we can just walk away from those at the bottom
and still 'conform'. And then work outside of this process to address the
problem - rather than write things so that we can ignore it.





Lots to think about.






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