![viavoice joel viavoice joel](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/bryan-moffett-designing-for-a-voice-activated-world-181028212616/95/designing-for-a-voiceactivated-world-1-638.jpg)
The November 27th TEITAC draft contains several changes: We will need to develop a process for claiming and evaluating claims of undue burden. Perhaps we can change the wording to read "These standards do not apply if there is no information technology for a given purpose available in the commercial marketplace that complies with these standards and equivalent alternatives are not possible."Ĭan we tighten up the language in the undue burden exception? Undue burden is evaluated on a case by case basis. It is meant as an exception for inherently visual IT, such as GIS (Geographic Information Systems). We also could expand our Information, Documentation, and Support section to include some of the other provisions in the TEITAC draft.Ī question regarding when the commercial unavailability exception would be applicable was posed. Should we have some sort of provision about training for people with disabilities? The November 27th TEITAC draft has a new provision (1.2-C) that we could use. Other Questions or Concerns about the Draft They will send a reference or some language.ġ3.3 and 13.4 contain technical changes that already have been discussed with the web technical group. Martha and Jon suggested that we refer to the US Department of Education to provide guidance for students in university settings. Changes to the Implementation GuidelinesĬhanged 3.2 to require a contrast ratio of at least 3:1.Ĭhanged 7.1 and 7.2 (and provisions c & d in the video & multimedia section) to specify essential information that is provided to the public use and/or required to by viewed by employees. Martha will send some wording from the feds that we might borrow for our definition. What about a new maintenance release that makes a product less accessible? We want to make it clear that systems should not be made less accessible, even if the modification is not substantial. Please send suggestions for updated wording to Discussion of Substantial Modifications Definition No one is aware of a single site that does this. Perhaps we can refer to a source that lists market shares of assistive technology software. It was suggested that the product names be removed from the definition. Some participants expressed concerns that listing product names might be inappropriate. We are not dictating which technologies should be used by state employees or the public, but just trying to help developers identify the most common software.
Viavoice joel how to#
The purpose of the definition is to give developers who may be using unknown or non-conventional coding techniques some guidelines for how to test for accessibility. Additionally, any modification that is expected to cost more than 20% of the original development cost or more than 20% of the total annual maintenance cost of the existing technology is a substantial modification.ĭiscussion of Leading Assistive Technologies Definition
![viavoice joel viavoice joel](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/fm2yEF1yIWw/maxresdefault.jpg)
This also includes making existing technology available to a new audience, such as a new agency or the public.
![viavoice joel viavoice joel](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51G-6E5ZPXL._SX331_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg)
Two new definitions have been added to the draft: Review of Updates to the IITAA Standards Draft