Task253
From TEITAC
Contents |
Taskforce Workscope and Goals
At the November plenary, the Committee created a new, voluntary task force chartered to:
- Propose a model to the TEITAC for sorting technical provisions that do not apply to Section 255 or Section 508.
- Identify technical provisions that need to be modified strictly for Section 255.
By performing these two exercises, it should be possible to determine whether TEITAC can create the “one document, two sections” deliverable proposed.
Taskforce Deliverables & Plan
The first deliverable from this task force is due by noon EST, Dec. 3, 2007. The results will be considered by the whole committee during our plenary conference call on Tuesday, Dec. 4.
Report from TEITAC Task Force on 255/508 differences (1/4/07) updated based on TEITAC discussions of January 7 and 9, 2008.
Membership
Participation is limited to TEITAC members. Meetings will be by teleconference with email discussions on a dedicated listserv.
Co-chairs
- Ellen Blackler (AT&T)
- Judy Brewer (W3C)
Initial Volunteers
- Jessica Brodey (ATIA)
- Mary Brooner (TIA)
- Brad Hodges (AFB)
- Mary Beth Janes (Apple)
- Peter Korn (Sun)
- Jennifer Simpson (AAPD)
- Karen Strauss (CSD)
- Gregg Vanderheiden (Trace)
For Discussion
- The provisions in section 2.3.3 User Interface and Electronic Content Provisions appear to to be relevant under Sec. 255 to the extent there is web-based information needed to access covered interconnected VOIP services;
- These same provisions appear to be relevant under section 255 for web-based information needed to access telecommunication services, voicemail and interactive menu functionality (e.g. functions, help, online video tutorials, billing, customer care, etc.);
- Text conversion of voicemail appears to be relevant under Sec. 255;
- The applicability of the concepts in the “agency” provisions appears to differ on a provision-by-provision basis. For instance (from Oct. 26 draft):
- 1.2-A Accessibility Configuration: currently stated in “agency” terms for relevance to Sec. 508, the concept also appears relevant for Sec. 255 but would need rephrasing;
- 1.2-B Accessible Content: currently stated in terms of “agency” distribution or archiving of content, with relevance to Sec. 508; unclear what the relevance to Sec. 255 would be;
- 1.2-D Biometric ID: the second paragraph of this provision is stated in terms of “agency” responsibility, with relevance to Sec. 508; however the first paragraph appears to be of potential relevance to Sec. 255.
- The rationales throughout the TEITAC draft should be re-examined, and in some cases re-phrased for Sec. 255;
- The additional provisions on authoring tools would apparently not apply directly, but could be useful on an advisory basis;
- If people are aware of any other provisions that they think should not apply to Sec. 255, please bring those to our attention by Monday, December 3, 2007.
