Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional and up-to-date details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

November 2006 General Report to TEITAC

Contents

THE "GENERAL" SUBCOMMITTEE Progress and status report November 7, 2006.

Overview

The general working group met three times by phone and conducted discussion via mailing list and WIKI.

There are 58 members of the committee and (over) 70 members on the listserv. A full listing of the committee can be found at http://teitac.org/wiki/General_Interface_Accessibility_Subcommittee_participants

Operating Procedures For The Committee

The committee elected co chairs Michael Takemura (HP) and Gregg Vanderheiden (UW Trace RERC).

The subcommittee also adopted a set of operating procedures. These can be found at http://teitac.org/wiki/Current_operating_procedures_for_this_committee. The procedures cover general procedures and policies, use of the mailing list, use of the WIKI, and teleconference call procedures.

Committee Works Scope and Goals

e group is not charged with deciding anything. Just identifying, highlighting, exploring options to issues identified, and then providing information on all of these to the TEITAC to inform the TEITAC – who will then decide what to do.

WORK PLAN

The committee collected general topics that have been raised by members. It then began collecting information on the WIKI, posting it to the link, and discussing it in the meetings. The topics generally broke into three categories.

Issues That Cut Across the Product Categories
  • Provisions that appear in more than one place in 508 and also in 255
    • Do a mapping of 508 and 255 and EITAAC
  • Functional Components View
  • Gaps in current provisions {Future Link}
    • Issues related to multiple chemical sensitivity
  • 3 layer view of guidelines
    1. GENERAL GUIDELINES - that apply to all technologies
      • (Jim has a bunch organized by topic already)
    2. ACTIVITY SPECIFIC GUIDELINES - that apply to an activity regardless of technology
      • (e.g. Realtime conversation at a distance)
    3. . TECHNOLOGY SPECIFIC GUIDELINES - that apply only to specific technologies
      • (e.g. TTY for PSTN calls. Line 21 for NTSC Broadcast captioning and videotapes)
Functional Performance Criteria (1194.31)
  • Functional performance Criteria {Future Link}
    • What is the role of the Functional Performance Criteria {Future Link}
    • Why no AT in 1194.31 (f): Why is 1194.31(f) different from the others in not mentioning AT?
Other
  • What type of research exists for any of the general topics {Future Link}
  • Consideration of the Themes

Highlights and Issues Raised by the Working Group to Date

1. The working group has compiled a list of items which appear in more than one place in 508 and also in 255. [This is a first pass and not considered final]

2. We have also done mappings of 508 255 and EITAAC (the report from the last 508 advisory committee). These break down into three individual mappings.

  • 508 to 255
  • EITAAC to 508 and
  • EITAAC to 255

A special thanks to Jim Thatcher and Jim Allen for taking this on and completing it.)

These provide an interesting insight into areas that the guidelines overlap and where they do not.

There is also a related document that we will be bringing in from work external to the group that will map the special working group's user needs against our guidelines.

3. Three layer view of the guidelines.

Two weeks ago a model was explored for both removing redundancy that we were finding both within 508 and between 508 and 255 and also addressing the functional nature of products (versus the separate technology situation we had in the past for computers, phones, etc.) Again it should be emphasized this model (and all of the models being explored by the subcommittee) are not recommendations of the subcommittee. They are simply things that the subcommittee is exploring at this point in order to better understand the guidelines and possible alternatives (or not) for improving them.

The three layer view would have

  1. General guidelines – that apply to all technologies
    • E.g. information that is presented in color is also available without color)
  2. Activity specific guidelines – that apply to an activity regardless of technology.
    • E.g. real time voice conversation at a distance
  3. Technology specific guidelines – that apply only to specific technologies.
    • E.g. TTY for PSTN. Line 21 captioning for NTSC broadcast and video tape.

The group only began to explore this model this week but based upon contributions by committee members over the last week.


While carrying out our analysis the following observations were made. Again it should be emphasized that these observations are not conclusions or recommendations of the group but simply a report of our most recent thinking.

  • Organization of the guidelines by disability is useful in some context and for helping to gain understanding.
    • One potential disadvantage of the disability approach was the fact that some purchasing agents/managers may skip entire sections of the guidelines saying “we don’t have any people with those disabilities”
  • Organization by function or component (as the case maybe) currently appears to be better for some designers and purchasing agents – and currently seemed a better approach to the group.
  • Key question asked is “what applies in my case?”
    • This applies both to designers and to purchasing agents
  • “What disabilities does this provision help and how?” - could be useful and might be provided as notations or in a guidance document.

Our discussion ended with a preference for some type of “characteristic approach” . For example:

  • Products that
    • Have visual displays
    • Have sound output
    • Have timed responses
    • Etc.

We have not gotten to the point of coming up with any set of characteristics or with resorting general techniques among them.

Future work

Future work is driven by our Plan (above), continuing input from members and the public, and feedback from the TEITAC Plenaries.


Our work can be followed both through out list serve and our wiki.


Respectfully Submitted

Michael Takemura

Gregg C Vanderheiden

Co-chairs.

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University