Thread Subject: API Requirements proposal

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Andi Snow-Weaver
Date: Mon, Apr 02 2007 6:05 PM
Subject: API Requirements proposal

The API requirements sub-group is ready to put forward a proposal for
modifications to 1194.21 (c), (d), and (f). [1]

Please review this proposal and provide your comments and feedback via the
mailing list. We will add this to the agenda for Wednesday's meeting.

[1]
http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Accessibility_API_Requirements_Draft_3

Andi

From: William Loughborough
Date: Mon, Apr 02 2007 6:25 PM
Subject: Re: API Requirements proposal

Andi Snow-Weaver wrote:
> Please review this proposal and provide your comments and feedback via the
> mailing list. We will add this to the agenda for Wednesday's meeting.
>
This seems OK. Interesting that the term "API" is absent.

Love.

From: Peter Korn
Date: Mon, Apr 02 2007 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: API Requirements proposal

Hi William,

>> Please review this proposal and provide your comments and feedback via the
>> mailing list. We will add this to the agenda for Wednesday's meeting.
>>
>>
> This seems OK. Interesting that the term "API" is absent.

The initial "API proposal" really wasn't about a specific API, but
rather about what any API must provide. This then changed to an "API
Requirements proposal", to make that clear. In further discussions at
the last TEITAC meeting (the web & software face-to-face in February) we
looked at ISO language, and really liked their phrase "accessibility
services", which you will see in this iteration in 1194.21(d).

I am personally very happy with how this process is going. I think that
the initial use of the term "API" was somethign of distraction from the
real goal - ensuring that the information that AT needs is clearly
enumerated and provided to IT. 1194.21(d) is becoming that clear
enumeration.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

From: Barrett, Don
Date: Mon, Apr 02 2007 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: API Requirements proposal

I like it. In (c), do we need "and is sufficient." Why not just end it
with "provided."

With regard to (f), I recommend we add the term "accessibility services
for platforms" to the definitions in Subpart A, so no one can say they
never heard of them or don't know what they are.

I concur with deleting the current (f) if the new (d) is adopted.

Don
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi
Snow-Weaver
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 7:57 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] API Requirements proposal


The API requirements sub-group is ready to put forward a proposal for
modifications to 1194.21 (c), (d), and (f). [1]

Please review this proposal and provide your comments and feedback via
the
mailing list. We will add this to the agenda for Wednesday's meeting.

[1]
http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Accessibility_API_Requirements_
Draft_3

Andi

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Apr 02 2007 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: API Requirements proposal

Very nice.

This is a nice model for things like this.

Do we want to say something about being on a system that supports AT or
something? Else this could get applied to phones, or even advance
calculators?


Nicely done.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 6:57 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] API Requirements proposal
>
>
> The API requirements sub-group is ready to put forward a
> proposal for modifications to 1194.21 (c), (d), and (f). [1]
>
> Please review this proposal and provide your comments and
> feedback via the mailing list. We will add this to the agenda
> for Wednesday's meeting.
>
> [1]
> http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Accessibility_API_Req
> uirements_Draft_3
>
> Andi
>
>

From: Peter Korn
Date: Tue, Apr 03 2007 1:10 AM
Subject: Re: API Requirements proposal

Hi Don,

> I like it. In (c), do we need "and is sufficient." Why not just end it
> with "provided."
>

For the technical folk who will be told to implement 1194.21 in their
software, we wanted to make it clear that for something like the
document content region of this e-mail application I'm using, a blinking
text caret is sufficient visual indication it has focus (a heavy dotted
line doesn't have to be drawn around the entire content region of this
window to indicate it has focus).

> With regard to (f), I recommend we add the term "accessibility services
> for platforms" to the definitions in Subpart A, so no one can say they
> never heard of them or don't know what they are.
>

Some definition of "accessibility services" makes sense to me.

Regards,


Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

From: Peter Korn
Date: Tue, Apr 03 2007 1:15 AM
Subject: Re: API Requirements proposal

Hi Gregg,

> Do we want to say something about being on a system that supports AT or
> something? Else this could get applied to phones, or even advance
> calculators?
>

Right now this is part of 1194.21 "Software applications and operating
systems". That title is one way of distinguishing this from phones &
calculators. I know the General group is looking at attribute-based
groupings. I believe most (all?) of us in this group had desktop
computing systems in mind when we crafted this language.

"on a system that supports AT" is I think tricky language (with a hole
in it you could drive something large through). One could make a
credible argument that Windows 3.1 and Macintosh (through System 7 at
least) and many other desktop systems that ran AT were systems that
"support AT" - AT was done in spite of them. A number of cell phones
today might be likewise in that camp.

At the same time, if some AT vendor somewhere managed to reverse
engineer something (even an advanced calculator), would that mean that
from that day forward no applications could be acquired by the Federal
Government for that calculator unless such software met everything in
(the new) 1194.21(d)? The existence of AT on a given device isn't the
best measure of this either.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

>
> Nicely done.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
>> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
>> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 6:57 PM
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] API Requirements proposal
>>
>>
>> The API requirements sub-group is ready to put forward a
>> proposal for modifications to 1194.21 (c), (d), and (f). [1]
>>
>> Please review this proposal and provide your comments and
>> feedback via the mailing list. We will add this to the agenda
>> for Wednesday's meeting.
>>
>> [1]
>> http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Accessibility_API_Req
>> uirements_Draft_3
>>
>> Andi
>>
>>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Apr 03 2007 8:45 AM
Subject: Re: API Requirements proposal

THanks Peter,

Yes - in the general group we were / are looking at over organization. And
putting a header on it would be the way we were suggesting for things that
are tied to just one type of product.


Hmmmm

The remaining questions then would be

- what about smart phones that sort of have an OS in them?
- what about smart phones that DO have an OS in them?
- what about 'installed AT compatibility' in anything besides things that
have an OS?
- what constitutes and OS?


Thinking forward.


Thanks


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Peter Korn
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 2:13 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] API Requirements proposal
>
> Hi Gregg,
>
> > Do we want to say something about being on a system that
> supports AT
> > or something? Else this could get applied to phones, or
> even advance
> > calculators?
> >
>
> Right now this is part of 1194.21 "Software applications and
> operating systems". That title is one way of distinguishing
> this from phones & calculators. I know the General group is
> looking at attribute-based groupings. I believe most (all?)
> of us in this group had desktop computing systems in mind
> when we crafted this language.
>
> "on a system that supports AT" is I think tricky language
> (with a hole in it you could drive something large through).
> One could make a credible argument that Windows 3.1 and
> Macintosh (through System 7 at
> least) and many other desktop systems that ran AT were
> systems that "support AT" - AT was done in spite of them. A
> number of cell phones today might be likewise in that camp.
>
> At the same time, if some AT vendor somewhere managed to
> reverse engineer something (even an advanced calculator),
> would that mean that from that day forward no applications
> could be acquired by the Federal Government for that
> calculator unless such software met everything in (the new)
> 1194.21(d)? The existence of AT on a given device isn't the
> best measure of this either.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
> >
> > Nicely done.
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Andi
> >> Snow-Weaver
> >> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 6:57 PM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] API Requirements proposal
> >>
> >>
> >> The API requirements sub-group is ready to put forward a
> proposal for
> >> modifications to 1194.21 (c), (d), and (f). [1]
> >>
> >> Please review this proposal and provide your comments and feedback
> >> via the mailing list. We will add this to the agenda for
> Wednesday's
> >> meeting.
> >>
> >> [1]
> >> http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Accessibility_API_Req
> >> uirements_Draft_3
> >>
> >> Andi
> >>
> >>

From: terry.weaver@gsa.gov
Date: Tue, Apr 03 2007 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: API Requirements proposal

Regarding accessible calculators, it may be that the horse is already out
of the barn. In my inbox today, I received the email below. It would
appear to address calculators as a closed system.

ViewPlus announces the third edition of their Audio Graphing Calculator!
The fully-accessible, scientific graphing calculator for Windows® Purchase
the full version for $295.00 or upgrade from AGC 2.0 to the most recent
version of 3.0 for $195.00.
Components of AGC 3.0:
Describing of a graph shape using audio tones and cues
Fully speaking menus with adjustable voice volume and speed
Scalable visual display
Keyboard navigation
Options for tactile output of graphs
New features include:
Advanced matrix functions
Ability to display multiple graphs and find intersections
Increased functionality of the expression evaluator
Increased quantity of statistical functions
Windows Vista Compatible! *Shipping April 9th* For more information or to
download a 30-day demo of the AGC, please visit www.viewplus.com




"Peter Korn" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
04/03/2007 03:12 AM
Please respond to
"TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To
"TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
cc

Subject
Re: [teitac-websoftware] API Requirements proposal






Hi Gregg,

> Do we want to say something about being on a system that supports AT or
> something? Else this could get applied to phones, or even advance
> calculators?
>

Right now this is part of 1194.21 "Software applications and operating
systems". That title is one way of distinguishing this from phones &
calculators. I know the General group is looking at attribute-based
groupings. I believe most (all?) of us in this group had desktop
computing systems in mind when we crafted this language.

"on a system that supports AT" is I think tricky language (with a hole
in it you could drive something large through). One could make a
credible argument that Windows 3.1 and Macintosh (through System 7 at
least) and many other desktop systems that ran AT were systems that
"support AT" - AT was done in spite of them. A number of cell phones
today might be likewise in that camp.

At the same time, if some AT vendor somewhere managed to reverse
engineer something (even an advanced calculator), would that mean that
from that day forward no applications could be acquired by the Federal
Government for that calculator unless such software met everything in
(the new) 1194.21(d)? The existence of AT on a given device isn't the
best measure of this either.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

>
> Nicely done.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
>> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
>> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 6:57 PM
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] API Requirements proposal
>>
>>
>> The API requirements sub-group is ready to put forward a
>> proposal for modifications to 1194.21 (c), (d), and (f). [1]
>>
>> Please review this proposal and provide your comments and
>> feedback via the mailing list. We will add this to the agenda
>> for Wednesday's meeting.
>>
>> [1]
>> http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Accessibility_API_Req
>> uirements_Draft_3
>>
>> Andi
>>
>>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Tue, Apr 03 2007 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: API Requirements proposal

lots of room for innovation here.

On Apr 3, 2007, at 12:05 PM, = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:


Regarding accessible calculators, it may be that the horse is already
out of the barn. In my inbox today, I received the email below. It
would appear to address calculators as a closed system.

ViewPlus announces the third edition of their Audio Graphing Calculator!
The fully-accessible, scientific graphing calculator for Windows®
Purchase the full version for $295.00 or upgrade from AGC 2.0 to the
most recent version of 3.0 for $195.00.

Components of AGC 3.0:

Describing of a graph shape using audio tones and cues
Fully speaking menus with adjustable voice volume and speed
Scalable visual display
Keyboard navigation
Options for tactile output of graphs
New features include:
Advanced matrix functions
Ability to display multiple graphs and find intersections
Increased functionality of the expression evaluator
Increased quantity of statistical functions
Windows Vista Compatible! *Shipping April 9th* For more information or
to download a 30-day demo of the AGC, please visit www.viewplus.com



"Peter Korn" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
04/03/2007 03:12 AM
Please respond to
"TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To
"TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
cc
Subject
Re: [teitac-websoftware] API Requirements proposal





Hi Gregg,

> Do we want to say something about being on a system that supports
AT or
> something? Else this could get applied to phones, or even advance
> calculators?
>

Right now this is part of 1194.21 "Software applications and operating
systems". That title is one way of distinguishing this from phones &
calculators. I know the General group is looking at attribute-based
groupings. I believe most (all?) of us in this group had desktop
computing systems in mind when we crafted this language.

"on a system that supports AT" is I think tricky language (with a hole
in it you could drive something large through). One could make a
credible argument that Windows 3.1 and Macintosh (through System 7 at
least) and many other desktop systems that ran AT were systems that
"support AT" - AT was done in spite of them. A number of cell phones
today might be likewise in that camp.

At the same time, if some AT vendor somewhere managed to reverse
engineer something (even an advanced calculator), would that mean that
from that day forward no applications could be acquired by the Federal
Government for that calculator unless such software met everything in
(the new) 1194.21(d)? The existence of AT on a given device isn't the
best measure of this either.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

>
> Nicely done.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
>> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
>> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 6:57 PM
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] API Requirements proposal
>>
>>
>> The API requirements sub-group is ready to put forward a
>> proposal for modifications to 1194.21 (c), (d), and (f). [1]
>>
>> Please review this proposal and provide your comments and
>> feedback via the mailing list. We will add this to the agenda
>> for Wednesday's meeting.
>>
>> [1]
>> http://teitac.org/wiki/Web_and_Software:_Accessibility_API_Req
>> uirements_Draft_3
>>
>> Andi
>>
>>

From: Peter Korn
Date: Wed, Apr 04 2007 3:30 PM
Subject: Re: API Requirements proposal

Hi Terry,

> Regarding accessible calculators, it may be that the horse is already
> out of the barn. In my inbox today, I received the email below. It
> would appear to address calculators as a closed system.
>
> *ViewPlus announces the third edition of their Audio Graphing
> Calculator!*
>
> The fully-accessible, scientific graphing calculator for Windows®
> Purchase the full version for $295.00 or upgrade from AGC 2.0 to the
> most recent version of 3.0 for $195.00.
>

If I'm not mistaken, the ViewPlus product is a software application
running on Windows. I don't think it is the theoretical (hardware)
calculator being referred to in this thread.

And it raises an interesting question for me...

We've talked about whether AT is or is not IT (and so is or is not
subject to 508). This software calculator AT access software that
provides access to other products (e.g. a screen reader). Rather, it is
a purpose built product designed explicitly to meet the needs of folks
with certain disabilities. Not unlike AAC software running on a general
purpose computer (or for that matter, a standalone AAC device).


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.