Thread Subject: Re: Grouping ofthecurrent 28software/web standards
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.
Can you recommend anything specific we should look at first in ? It
is pretty extensive and I haven't seen it before; don't want to waste my
time with dead ends if others have mined it already; any recommendations
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 4:33 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Grouping of thecurrent 28software/web
Don Barrett wrote:
>Please let's not get caught up in the intellectual machinations of how
break the 28 standards into groups. The major purpose for doing this is
only manageability in discussion; we are not forming new categories as I
understand things. Whether we use Peter's, Richard's, Jim's,
Jonathan's, doesn't matter so much as just picking some artificial
scheme and using it to make our task manageable.
Am I missing something?
<end of Don's comments>
You are correct. The purpose of the grouping is simply to facilitate our
discussion of the existing provisions. I propose that we group them for
our discussion as Jim Thatcher last suggested .
To answer Jim's question about a list of standards, the JTC-1 Special
Working Group on Accessibility has just completed an inventory of
- both accessibility standards and standards that probably should
include accessibility provisions. It is a spreadsheet and is quite
extensive. You can download it at .
I would ask you all to hold off on getting into detailed discussions on
the provisions for a few more days. Before this list was available, I
was communicating with some early subcommittee members via a
I have urged them all to subscribe to this list as I will stop using the
distribution list as of Monday, October 16th. So I would like to wait
until next week before we get into any more technical discussions to
give them all a chance to subscribe.