Thread Subject: Split 21 c into to provisions
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: Sat, Mar 24 2007 2:50 PM
Subject: Split 21 c into to provisions
21 c should be split into two provisions
The first half has to do with direct access.
The second half has to do with AT compatibility.
Confusing and difficult to report conformance with the two halves since they
are different domains.
If we look at this as "direct access or access via AT" then you can't even
say if both halves should conform.
They also are of benefit to different groups.
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: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Sun, Mar 25 2007 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: Split 21 c into to provisions
Gregg,
I'd like to see specific language that you're proposing. You are
suggesting that it would be an either/or situation still? What if one
application does both, supports AT for most things but supplements some
areas of the app with direct access - does that fit in still?
AWK
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Mar 25 2007 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: Split 21 c into to provisions
GV: Hi Andrew. Two sets have already been proposed. They are below.
The number 1 item would go into direct access
The number 2 item would go into the 'AT compatibility'
Whether you do one or both is an independent question. I think doing both
is a good idea. We currently require both. But then say "direct or AT" in
the functional section.
Hmmmmm interesting question indeed Andrew.
>From ISO
1) Software shall provide a focus cursor that visually indicates which
user interface element currently has the keyboard input focus, as well as
the focus location within that element when one exists."
2) "Software shall provide assistive technology with notification of
events relevant to user interactions".
OR
1) A well-defined on-screen indication shall be provided for every
interactive interface element as it gains input focus.
2) The focus shall be programmatically exposed so that assistive technology
can track focus and focus changes.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andrew
Kirkpatrick
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 10:42 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c into to provisions
Gregg,
I'd like to see specific language that you're proposing. You are suggesting
that it would be an either/or situation still? What if one application does
both, supports AT for most things but supplements some areas of the app with
direct access - does that fit in still?
AWK
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 5:49 PM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c into to provisions
21 c should be split into two provisions
The first half has to do with direct access.
The second half has to do with AT compatibility.
Confusing and difficult to report conformance with the two halves since they
are different domains.
If we look at this as "direct access or access via AT" then you can't even
say if both halves should conform.
They also are of benefit to different groups.
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: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Tue, Mar 27 2007 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: Split 21 c into to provisions
Gregg and Andrew,
The AT-IT interopability sub-team is working on a proposal that includes 21
(c) so let's table this until they are ready to bring forward an updated
proposal.
Andi
"Gregg
Vanderheiden"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = To
u> "'TEITAC Web/Software
Sent by: Subcommittee'"
teitac-websoftwar < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
itac.org cc
Subject
03/26/2007 12:58 Re: [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c
AM into to provisions
Please respond to
TEITAC
Web/Software
Subcommittee
<teitac-websoftwa
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
g>
GV: Hi Andrew. Two sets have already been proposed. They are below.
The number 1 item would go into direct access
The number 2 item would go into the âAT compatibilityâ
Whether you do one or both is an independent question. I think doing
both is a good idea. We currently require both. But then say âdirect or
ATâ in the functional section.
Hmmmmm interesting question indeed Andrew.
From ISO
1) Software shall provide a focus cursor that visually indicates
which user interface element currently has the keyboard input focus,
as well as the focus location within that element when one exists."
2) "Software shall provide assistive technology with
notification of events relevant to user interactions".
OR
1) A well-defined on-screen indication shall be provided for every
interactive interface element as it gains input focus.
2) The focus shall be programmatically exposed so that assistive
technology can track focus and focus changes.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andrew
Kirkpatrick
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 10:42 PM.
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c into to provisions
Gregg,
I'd like to see specific language that you're proposing. You are
suggesting that it would be an either/or situation still? What if one
application does both, supports AT for most things but supplements some
areas of the app with direct access - does that fit in still?
AWK
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 5:49 PM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c into to provisions:
21 c should be split into two provisions
The first half has to do with direct access.
The second half has to do with AT compatibility.
Confusing and difficult to report conformance with the two halves since
they are different domains.
If we look at this as âdirect access or access via ATâ then you can't even
say if both halves should conform.
They also are of benefit to different groups.
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/> FAX 608/262-8848
DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
_______________________________________________
teitac-websoftware mailing list
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
http://list.teitac.org/mailman/listinfo/teitac-websoftware
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Mar 27 2007 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Split 21 c into to provisions
Sounds good.
Should the direct access part be broken out though? That isn AT-IT
interop and really should be separate anyway. No?
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:21 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c into to provisions
>
> Gregg and Andrew,
>
> The AT-IT interopability sub-team is working on a proposal
> that includes 21
> (c) so let's table this until they are ready to bring forward
> an updated proposal.
>
> Andi
>
>
>
>
>
> "Gregg
>
> Vanderheiden"
>
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> To
> u> "'TEITAC Web/Software
>
> Sent by: Subcommittee'"
>
> teitac-websoftwar
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> itac.org
> cc
>
>
>
> Subject
> 03/26/2007 12:58 Re:
> [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c
> AM into to provisions
>
>
>
>
>
> Please respond to
>
> TEITAC
>
> Web/Software
>
> Subcommittee
>
> <teitac-websoftwa
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> g>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> GV: Hi Andrew. Two sets have already been proposed. They
> are below.
>
> The number 1 item would go into direct access
> The number 2 item would go into the 'AT compatibility'
>
> Whether you do one or both is an independent question. I
> think doing
> both is a good idea. We currently require both. But then
> say "direct or AT" in the functional section.
>
> Hmmmmm interesting question indeed Andrew.
>
>
> From ISO
>
> 1) Software shall provide a focus cursor that
> visually indicates
> which user interface element currently has the keyboard
> input focus,
> as well as the focus location within that element when
> one exists."
>
> 2) "Software shall provide assistive technology with
> notification of events relevant to user interactions".
>
>
>
> OR
>
>
> 1) A well-defined on-screen indication shall be provided for
> every interactive interface element as it gains input focus.
>
>
> 2) The focus shall be programmatically exposed so that
> assistive technology can track focus and focus changes.
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 10:42 PM.
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c into to
> provisions Gregg, I'd like to see specific language that
> you're proposing. You are suggesting that it would be an
> either/or situation still? What if one application does
> both, supports AT for most things but supplements some areas
> of the app with direct access - does that fit in still?
>
> AWK
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 5:49 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c into to provisions:
> 21 c should be split into two provisions
>
> The first half has to do with direct access.
>
> The second half has to do with AT compatibility.
>
> Confusing and difficult to report conformance with the two
> halves since they are different domains.
>
> If we look at this as "direct access or access via AT" then
> you can't even say if both halves should conform.
> They also are of benefit to different groups.
>
>
>
> 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/> FAX 608/262-8848 DSS Player at
> http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>
>
>
>
>
From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Tue, Mar 27 2007 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: Split 21 c into to provisions
Gregg,
We are currently discussing provisions that are modeled after ISO; i.e a
provision that requires a visual focus indicator and something in the AT-IT
interoperability provision about notification of events (like focus
changes). So I think your concern will be addressed once we bring forward
the proposal.
Andi
"Gregg
Vanderheiden"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = To
u> "'TEITAC Web/Software
Sent by: Subcommittee'"
teitac-websoftwar < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
itac.org cc
Subject
03/27/2007 11:36 Re: [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c
AM into to provisions
Please respond to
TEITAC
Web/Software
Subcommittee
<teitac-websoftwa
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
g>
Sounds good.
Should the direct access part be broken out though? That isn AT-IT
interop and really should be separate anyway. No?
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:21 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c into to provisions
>
> Gregg and Andrew,
>
> The AT-IT interopability sub-team is working on a proposal
> that includes 21
> (c) so let's table this until they are ready to bring forward
> an updated proposal.
>
> Andi
>
>
>
>
>
> "Gregg
>
> Vanderheiden"
>
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> To
> u> "'TEITAC Web/Software
>
> Sent by: Subcommittee'"
>
> teitac-websoftwar
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> itac.org
> cc
>
>
>
> Subject
> 03/26/2007 12:58 Re:
> [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c
> AM into to provisions
>
>
>
>
>
> Please respond to
>
> TEITAC
>
> Web/Software
>
> Subcommittee
>
> <teitac-websoftwa
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> g>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> GV: Hi Andrew. Two sets have already been proposed. They
> are below.
>
> The number 1 item would go into direct access
> The number 2 item would go into the 'AT compatibility'
>
> Whether you do one or both is an independent question. I
> think doing
> both is a good idea. We currently require both. But then
> say "direct or AT" in the functional section.
>
> Hmmmmm interesting question indeed Andrew.
>
>
> From ISO
>
> 1) Software shall provide a focus cursor that
> visually indicates
> which user interface element currently has the keyboard
> input focus,
> as well as the focus location within that element when
> one exists."
>
> 2) "Software shall provide assistive technology with
> notification of events relevant to user interactions".
>
>
>
> OR
>
>
> 1) A well-defined on-screen indication shall be provided for
> every interactive interface element as it gains input focus.
>
>
> 2) The focus shall be programmatically exposed so that
> assistive technology can track focus and focus changes.
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 10:42 PM.
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c into to
> provisions Gregg, I'd like to see specific language that
> you're proposing. You are suggesting that it would be an
> either/or situation still? What if one application does
> both, supports AT for most things but supplements some areas
> of the app with direct access - does that fit in still?
>
> AWK
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 5:49 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c into to provisions:
> 21 c should be split into two provisions
>
> The first half has to do with direct access.
>
> The second half has to do with AT compatibility.
>
> Confusing and difficult to report conformance with the two
> halves since they are different domains.
>
> If we look at this as "direct access or access via AT" then
> you can't even say if both halves should conform.
> They also are of benefit to different groups.
>
>
>
> 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/> FAX 608/262-8848 DSS Player at
> http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>
>
>
>
>
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Mar 28 2007 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Split 21 c into to provisions
Ah
Thanks
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 4:27 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c into to provisions
>
> Gregg,
>
> We are currently discussing provisions that are modeled after
> ISO; i.e a provision that requires a visual focus indicator
> and something in the AT-IT interoperability provision about
> notification of events (like focus changes). So I think your
> concern will be addressed once we bring forward the proposal.
>
> Andi
>
>
>
>
>
> "Gregg
>
> Vanderheiden"
>
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> To
> u> "'TEITAC Web/Software
>
> Sent by: Subcommittee'"
>
> teitac-websoftwar
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> itac.org
> cc
>
>
>
> Subject
> 03/27/2007 11:36 Re:
> [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c
> AM into to provisions
>
>
>
>
>
> Please respond to
>
> TEITAC
>
> Web/Software
>
> Subcommittee
>
> <teitac-websoftwa
>
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> g>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sounds good.
>
> Should the direct access part be broken out though? That
> isn AT-IT
> interop and really should be separate anyway. No?
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Andi
> > Snow-Weaver
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 11:21 AM
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c into to provisions
> >
> > Gregg and Andrew,
> >
> > The AT-IT interopability sub-team is working on a proposal that
> > includes 21
> > (c) so let's table this until they are ready to bring forward an
> > updated proposal.
> >
> > Andi
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Gregg
> >
> > Vanderheiden"
> >
> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > To
> > u> "'TEITAC Web/Software
> >
> > Sent by: Subcommittee'"
> >
> > teitac-websoftwar
> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >
> > itac.org
> > cc
> >
> >
> >
> > Subject
> > 03/26/2007 12:58 Re:
> > [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c
> > AM into to provisions
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Please respond to
> >
> > TEITAC
> >
> > Web/Software
> >
> > Subcommittee
> >
> > <teitac-websoftwa
> >
> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >
> > g>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > GV: Hi Andrew. Two sets have already been proposed. They
> > are below.
> >
> > The number 1 item would go into direct access
> > The number 2 item would go into the 'AT compatibility'
> >
> > Whether you do one or both is an independent question. I
> > think doing
> > both is a good idea. We currently require both. But then
> say "direct
> > or AT" in the functional section.
> >
> > Hmmmmm interesting question indeed Andrew.
> >
> >
> > From ISO
> >
> > 1) Software shall provide a focus cursor that
> > visually indicates
> > which user interface element currently has the keyboard input
> > focus,
> > as well as the focus location within that element when one
> > exists."
> >
> > 2) "Software shall provide assistive technology with
> > notification of events relevant to user interactions".
> >
> >
> >
> > OR
> >
> >
> > 1) A well-defined on-screen indication shall be provided for every
> > interactive interface element as it gains input focus.
> >
> >
> > 2) The focus shall be programmatically exposed so that assistive
> > technology can track focus and focus changes.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > Andrew Kirkpatrick
> > Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2007 10:42 PM.
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c into to provisions
> > Gregg, I'd like to see specific language that you're
> proposing. You
> > are suggesting that it would be an either/or situation
> still? What if
> > one application does both, supports AT for most things but
> > supplements some areas of the app with direct access -
> does that fit
> > in still?
> >
> > AWK
> >
> >
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > Gregg Vanderheiden
> > Sent: Saturday, March 24, 2007 5:49 PM
> > To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> > Subject: [teitac-websoftware] Split 21 c into to provisions:
> > 21 c should be split into two provisions
> >
> > The first half has to do with direct access.
> >
> > The second half has to do with AT compatibility.
> >
> > Confusing and difficult to report conformance with the two halves
> > since they are different domains.
> >
> > If we look at this as "direct access or access via AT"
> then you can't
> > even say if both halves should conform.
> > They also are of benefit to different groups.
> >
> >
> >
> > 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/> FAX 608/262-8848 DSS Player at
> > http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
WebAIM is an initiative of:
