RE: [SEC508] Two questions

[Phill Jenkins <pjenkins@us.ibm.com>]

I however believe that an acceptance
criteria can be established when things are read, or tabbed to, or magnified
out of order compared to the visual presentation.  For example, when
3 or more "things" are out of order, then it is no longer a "usability"
issue, but an "accessibility" issue: 
        -
if 1 or 2 of the radio buttons are in a different order than the visual
presentation, then is an inconvenience
        -
if three sections of a web page (div's, etc.) are read, tabbed to, or magnified
in a different order than visual presented,  then it's a problem.
 

Now, there is no set criteria set in
the 508 regulation at this point, but there could be.  A company or
consultant can, and in my opinion should, set some of these criteria until
such a public standard is set.  I may pick 3, you may pick 5, but
at least pick something that can be used consistently to back up the recommendation.

Regards,
Phill Jenkins
IBM Worldwide Accessibility Center
http://www.ibm.com/able

"Jim Tobias" <tobias@inclusive.com>
Sent by: sec508-admin@trace.wisc.edu

11/14/2005 01:03 PM

To	"'Erika Noll Webb'" <ewebb@quintusdesign.com>, <sec508@trace.wisc.edu>
cc
Subject	RE: [SEC508] Two questions

The trick here is the supposed need for a "fast
hit 508 review".  While time
may be crucial right now, it doesn't mean that your client should be able
to
ignore the need for long term, product lifecycle-type accessibility
planning.  But you're not really responsible for their final decision,
are
you?  All you can do is help them create a reasonably prioritized
list of
fixes for this design cycle.  They *should* fix them all, but you
can't
force them.

Speaking of the technical issue itself, I think it's pretty low priority.
The people most inconvenienced are going to be those who use residual vision
as well as a screen reader.  But even for them, it's not too bad.
 What
percent of the total user experience is mucked up this way?  And there's
really not something that's worse about the product, like some color
combinations or icon designs?

***********
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
tobias@inclusive.com
+732.441.0831 v/tty
www.inclusive.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erika Noll Webb [mailto:ewebb@quintusdesign.com] 
> Sent: Monday, November 14, 2005 12:00 PM
> To: 'Jim Tobias'; sec508@trace.wisc.edu
> Subject: RE: [SEC508] Two questions
> 
> While I'm worried about starting a fire storm with this one, 
> I'm facing some interesting issues on an evaluation I'm doing 
> right now.  Normally, I'm working with a development team in
> process, but now I'm working with a group that needs a fast 
> hit 508 review.  There are some things that I think 
> technically pass, but aren't great.  For example, in a 
> particular window, everything on the screen is accessible 
> from the keyboard, but the order isn't the same as the visual 
> representation.  All the elements that are supposed to be 
> clustered together (e.g. like a series of radio buttons), but 
> the order of the options isn't the same.  
> 
> How do you approach a client on things like this?  
> Technically it passes, but I want them to fix it later.  I 
> remember another "technical pass" issue came up recently
and 
> I'm curious now what others do.  My recollection was that 
> someone (maybe Don?) said that he'd pass something, but I 
> wonder if you go back and tell them it should still be fixed later.
> 
>                  
> Regards,
> Erika 
> 
> Erika Noll Webb, Ph.D. 
> ewebb@quintusdesign.com
> www.quintusdesign.com
> office:  303.449.5020
> mobile: 720.319.2145 
> fax:     303.449.7045 
>                  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SEC508 mailing list
> SEC508@trace.wisc.edu
> http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/sec508
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
SEC508 mailing list
SEC508@trace.wisc.edu
http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/sec508