|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010213140025.03a6f550@po9.mit.edu> Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:10:49 -0500 To: sw-access@MIT.EDU From: Nina Davis-Millis <ninadm@MIT.EDU> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed 1. This is getting really exciting! 2. A picky comments about wording. As it now stands, the document divides the world into two pieces: web pages and software. The assumption, I suppose, is that web pages are things we write ourselves and software is any application we buy, lease or build. If these assumptions are shared by the rest of you, then it becomes confusing where to place the thousands of leased web-based resources the Libraries offer to MIT. As I say, I think this is a question of wording more than anything else. 3. A more substantive comment. We had several discussions in which we acknowledged that in some cases the world of computing might not have developed enough in this area for a particular vendor or product to meet our requirements right away. As it now stands, this document could be interpreted as unreasonable -- that is, if it were seen as requiring us to demand the impossible of third-party vendors. Perhaps we need to define further what is meant by "Software ... needs to be reviewed for accessibility features" -- in other words, if the review takes place and the product fails in one or more aspects, what then? Nina
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |