Thread Subject: web/software and general interface/subpart A
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: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Wed, Mar 28 2007 11:10 AM
Subject: web/software and general interface/subpart A
interesting idea brought up today about using the specific language and
selection rules to define applicability of provisions to specific
technologies or characteristics of technologies.
The rules for determining applicability *must* be documentable for this
idea to work, and therefore could be documented into the standard in
subpart A applicability:
For example:
provisions from subpart B shall be applicable when terms from a
characteristic from (reference) are included in the provision language.
It is intended that such a match indicates that the specific provision
is applicable to such technologies which include such characteristics.
Self encoded applicability! Great.
Seems like it would make any legal discussion an short one.
From: David Poehlman
Date: Wed, Mar 28 2007 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: web/software and general interface/subpartA
looks like a lot of flipping back and forth to me.
On Mar 28, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
interesting idea brought up today about using the specific language and
selection rules to define applicability of provisions to specific
technologies or characteristics of technologies.
The rules for determining applicability *must* be documentable for this
idea to work, and therefore could be documented into the standard in
subpart A applicability:
For example:
provisions from subpart B shall be applicable when terms from a
characteristic from (reference) are included in the provision language.
It is intended that such a match indicates that the specific provision
is applicable to such technologies which include such characteristics.
Self encoded applicability! Great.
Seems like it would make any legal discussion an short one.
From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Wed, Mar 28 2007 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: web/software and general interface/subpartA
It would not have to be.
Lets examine a potential instance.
A provisions says:
When software provides x,y,z a,b,c requirement is applicable.
another one says
When web pages include functionality that does x,y,z, a,b,c is
applicable.
Basically all one has to do is match the characteristic in the provision
to the set of things that are being done, so if you are doing web and
software you would pick both provisions.
Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
Poehlman
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:15 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] web/software and general
interface/subpartA
looks like a lot of flipping back and forth to me.
On Mar 28, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
interesting idea brought up today about using the specific language and
selection rules to define applicability of provisions to specific
technologies or characteristics of technologies.
The rules for determining applicability *must* be documentable for this
idea to work, and therefore could be documented into the standard in
subpart A applicability:
For example:
provisions from subpart B shall be applicable when terms from a
characteristic from (reference) are included in the provision language.
It is intended that such a match indicates that the specific provision
is applicable to such technologies which include such characteristics.
Self encoded applicability! Great.
Seems like it would make any legal discussion an short one.
From: David Poehlman
Date: Wed, Mar 28 2007 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: web/software and general interface/subpartA
hmm, I might have to see an example of this. if someone tells me
thatt c is applicable, don't I have to look up c? I like the
references, but people have enough problems just using the standards
right in front of them.
On Mar 28, 2007, at 2:20 PM, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
It would not have to be.
Lets examine a potential instance.
A provisions says:
When software provides x,y,z a,b,c requirement is applicable.
another one says
When web pages include functionality that does x,y,z, a,b,c is
applicable.
Basically all one has to do is match the characteristic in the provision
to the set of things that are being done, so if you are doing web and
software you would pick both provisions.
Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
Poehlman
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 2:15 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] web/software and general
interface/subpartA
looks like a lot of flipping back and forth to me.
On Mar 28, 2007, at 2:04 PM, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
interesting idea brought up today about using the specific language and
selection rules to define applicability of provisions to specific
technologies or characteristics of technologies.
The rules for determining applicability *must* be documentable for this
idea to work, and therefore could be documented into the standard in
subpart A applicability:
For example:
provisions from subpart B shall be applicable when terms from a
characteristic from (reference) are included in the provision language.
It is intended that such a match indicates that the specific provision
is applicable to such technologies which include such characteristics.
Self encoded applicability! Great.
Seems like it would make any legal discussion an short one.
WebAIM is an initiative of:
