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.

Web and Software:October 24

Contents

Minutes

Action items from last week

  1. COMPLETE: Andi will request approval from the TEITAC co-chairs of Andi and Curtis as co-chairs of this subcommittee.
  2. COMPLETE: Andi to recommend to the TEITAC that they include an agenda item at the next meeting to discuss whether or not there should be a cut-off date when the subcommittees would close to new members. The mailing lists would never close to new subscribers and public comment would always be welcome.
  3. COMPLETE: Bruce Bailey to post a tip on referencing an entire thread on the mailing list.
  4. COMPLETE: Andi to request that the TEITAC provide wiki training as part of their administrative responsibilities.
  5. COMPLETE: Andi to add something on content to the workscope and goals
  6. PARTIALLY COMPLETE: Andi to start Group A discussion on the mailing list.
  7. PARTIALLY COMPLETE (Andi did this for Group A on the mailing list): Luke Kowalski will provide ISO 9241 Part 171 provisions that are comparable to Section 508 1194.21 provisions.
  8. Judy Brewer to send requirements for W3C copyright notices.
  9. Andi to check with Access Board staff to confirm that we can quote provisions in other standards.

Discussion of the definition of harmonization

  • The ideal would be for the standards to be the same. Example is ISO 9241 part 171 and ANSI/HFES 200 Part 2.
  • At a minimum, there should be no conflicts. You should be able to conform to two harmonized standards without any conflicts.
  • Industry perspective: Should be able to build one product that we can sell globally that meets accessibility requirements.
  • Action: What are the access board's responsibilities of promulgating the standards? Have the ever adopted an international standard? If so, did it require additional work? Was there a regulatory assessment issue? Other roadblocks?
  • Members of other standards groups were encouraged to speak up if we are heading in a conflicting direction.

New page for collecting General issues related to Web and Software.

  • As we are having our focused discussions on the current provisions, more general issues are popping up. These will be difficult to find later because they may be buried in the mailing list under the wrong subject line.
  • General issues page is a place where we can collect these for later discussion as they pop up.

Use of wiki and mailing list

  • All "discussion" should take place on the mailing list so that it is archived.
  • Summary of mailing list discussion will be posted to the wiki when a particular topic is scheduled to be discussed in a subcommittee teleconference.

Discussion of Group A provisions

21(a)

  • "discerned textually" wording is unclear
  • ISO wording is an improvement over current 508 wording
  • MouseKeys is not an acceptable method of providing discrete keyboard operation such as menus or dialog navigation or CAD type drawing (lines, rectangles, etc.)
  • CAD type drawing needs improvements in efficiency for keyboard users.
  • No conclusion on whether or not MouseKeys is sufficient for free-form drawing
  • Concern expressed by some that we don't know how to do free-form drawing with keyboard.
  • Action: Need a presentation on where graphical applications are going.

21(b)

  • No support for ISO wording; at least one person prefers the 508 wording because it allows flexibility for the features to be provided where it is most appropriate
  • No consensus as to whether or not 508 should require certain accessibility features in the operating system or platform.
    • If 508 does require certain OS features, they should be described in a general way without using brand names such as MouseKeys, StickyKeys, etc.
  • Concern expressed that ATs use undocumented methods to provide access. But we can't require IT vendors to not interfere with what is not documented.

Future meeting dates

  • The October 30th meeting is cancelled due to Andi's travel
  • Next scheduled meetings:
    • November 1, 2006: 11:00 AM - 12:30 PM, US Eastern time
    • November 6, 2006: 2:00 - 3:30 PM US Eastern time

Summary of action items

  1. PARTIALLY COMPLETE: Andi to start Group A discussion on the mailing list. 21(c) was left out.
  2. PARTIALLY COMPLETE (Andi did this for Group A on the mailing list): Luke Kowalski will provide ISO 9241 Part 171 provisions that are comparable to Section 508 1194.21 provisions.
  3. Judy Brewer to send requirements for W3C copyright notices.
  4. Andi to check with Access Board staff to confirm that we can quote provisions in other standards.
  5. Unassigned: What are the access board's responsibilities of promulgating the standards? Have the ever adopted an international standard? If so, did it require additional work? Was there a regulatory assessment issue? Other roadblocks?
  6. Unassigned: Need a presentation on where graphical applications are going.

Attendees

  1. Peter Korn
  2. Jim Thatcher
  3. Andrew LaHart
  4. Michele Budris
  5. connie myers
  6. Mike Fratkin
  7. Jim Allan
  8. Amy Chen
  9. Curtis Chong
  10. Chuck Letourneau
  11. Andrew Kirkpatrick
  12. JimTobias
  13. Ken Salaets
  14. Andi Snow-Weaver
  15. Shannon Rapuano
  16. Brad Hodges
  17. Matt Kaplowitz
  18. Kate Walser
  19. rex lint
  20. ken kipnes
  21. Katie Haritos-Shea
  22. Debbie Cook
  23. Alex Li
  24. Earl Johnson
  25. Dewi Gani

Regrets

  1. Geoff Freed, WGBH/NCAM
  2. Mary Frances Laughton, Industry Canada

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