Re: Frames and accessibility: opinions please

> >> also don't understand why something must be OS neutral to meet a
> >
> >because a standard cannot be proprietary
>
>> More misinformation.  The 508 standard actually implies the use of
>> "proprietary standards when it says: [2] 1194.21 (f) "Textual
information
>> shall be provided through operating system functions for displaying
text.
>> The minimum information that shall be made available is text content,
text
>> input caret location, and text attributes."
>
>No.  All this is saying is that you should not make the job of a screen
>reader difficult by making it have to be application aware, so, don't,
>for instance hand construct a bit map of the font, but rather output
>it in a way that allows it to be copied from the screen (this is always
>going to be a problem area for GUIs, as the underlying text is not
>generally known to the OS; it just calls on the application to recreate
>the bitmap of it when needed).

I agree that paragraph f is saying that application shall make the job of
the screen reader easier. 508 says <quote> through operating system
functions <unquote>.  In my opinion, using the operating system functions
is using proprietary standards of the operating system.  My point was
<quote> The 508 standard actually implies the use of proprietary standards
<end quote>.  I don't want to debate whether 508 or W3C or Windows or Linux
is a standard or not.  But I was disagreeing with the statement that
standards must be non-proprietary.  That can be someone's opinion, but 508
is what it says. I would like to change parts of 508, but I don't have the
right to re-state 508 or misinform others.  Sure there are lots of
standards bodies, including ISO that is more or less recognized by
governments.  W3C is a quasi standards organization.  508 is titled <quote>
Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards".  The word
standard is in the title - that's all.

Phill

Received on Tuesday, 30 April 2002 10:08:57 UTC