Thread Subject: Final? draft of 1194.41a, b, and c (was discussion of who pays for alternate format)
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: Michele Budris
Date: Fri, Mar 16 2007 1:20 PM
Subject: Final? draft of 1194.41a, b, and c (was discussion of who pays for alternate format)
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<font face="Albany">In the discussions of how to make clear who pays
for alternate formats the proposal was made to rewrite 1194.41a, b, and
c to be the text below. In the March 15, 2007 meeting it was agreed to
make this the final version unless issues are raised. Deadline for
feedback is Friday, March 26, 2007.</font><font face="Albany"><br>
<br>
</font>
<p><b>Subpart D -- Information, Documentation, and Support</b>
</p>
<p><b>§ 1194.41 Information, documentation, and support.</b>
</p>
<p>(a) To enable Federal agencies to provide product support
documentation to end-users in an accessible format, Federal agencies
shall require that all documentation supporting the product, including
but not limited to reports, system documentation and end user training
or technical support materials shall conform the relevant accessibility
provisions in 1194 Subparts B and C.
</p>
<p>(b) Federal agencies shall provide end-users access to a
description of the accessibility and compatibility features of products
in alternate formats or alternate methods upon request.
</p>
<p>(c) Support services for products shall accommodate the
communication needs of end-users with disabilities
</p>
<p>Best Practice : If the documentation supporting the product,
reports or other documentation are to be provided via a contract, then
the contract must include this requirement.
</p>
<p>If the descriptions for the end-users regarding the
accessibility and compatibility features of products in alternate
formats are to be provided via a contract, then the contract must
include this requirement.
</p>
<br>
<font face="Albany"><br>
Michele<br>
</font>
</body>
</html>
From: Whitney Quesenbery
Date: Mon, Mar 19 2007 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: Final? draft of 1194.41a, b, and c (was discussion of who pays for alternate format)
At 04:52 PM 3/19/2007, David Poehlman wrote:
>In other words, do away with alternate formats altogether
>and talk about compliant formats if you will.
So, if I posted a "file" in several formats and at least one of the formats
met each of the general functional performance requirements, I'd be in
compliance?
As I think about this, I do this all the time, even outside of disabilities
considerations. For example, if the information if the info is from an
application used by some (but not all) members of a project, I might send
it out in the native format, but also send an exported format such as text
or PDF or HTML. (Example: Microsoft Project, which will create a number of
formats to read a project plan.)
The next question is what is a "sufficient" format. Is it enough to have
formats that (taken as a group) conform to requirements? What else must be
taken into consideration:
-- The capabilities of the users' IT be taken into consideration? The
example above is one (from general use) in which the availability of the
"reader program" is a consideration.
-- User preferences? I can see how this might be determined through user
research in a specific case (easier or perhaps more targeted for employees
than for the public), but how would it be specified as a general requirement.
-- Availability (% adoption? cost? ease of acquisition/installation?) of
the AT or "reader program"?
What if I choose not to install a wildly popular and free plugin (e.g.
Acrobat, Flash)? Is that "my choice" but not "your responsibility"?
Whitney Quesenbery
Whitney Interactive Design
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
phone: 908-638-5467
mobile: 908-328-5959
www.WQusability.com
www.usabilityprofessionals.org
"Warning: Objects in the calendar are closer than they appear."
From: Whitney Quesenbery
Date: Mon, Mar 19 2007 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: Final? draft of 1194.41a, b, and c (was discussion of who pays for alternate format)
At 06:26 PM 3/19/2007, David Poehlman wrote:
>dp: I don't see how a group of formats could be taken to meet the
>requirements but I supposse that the requirements could be written
>and or enterpreted in that way. I'd actually like to see
>requirements such that we get cross modality in open standards in any
>compliant format but failing that, we could have a provision or set
>of provisions which allow for multiiple formats to meet the
>requirements as a whole.
WQ: Good point, in applications/formats where this is possible. What about:
a diagram in a graphics format and an accompanying textual description.
Whitney Quesenbery
Whitney Interactive Design
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
phone: 908-638-5467
mobile: 908-328-5959
www.WQusability.com
www.usabilityprofessionals.org
"Warning: Objects in the calendar are closer than they appear."
WebAIM is an initiative of:
