Thread Subject: Re: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Nov 14 2006 11:15 AM

This is a good discussion.

In Diane's example, the computers are closed by policy. So some of them
have AT installed on them (built into them before they are closed). Thus
they would meet 'closed system' access requirements because they met the
built in accessibility (by added AT) before they were closed. Or rather, in
their "closed state" they meet all the closed product guidelines.


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Diane Golden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:53 AM
> To: 'Rex Lint'; 'TEITAC self contained/closed products
> subcommittee'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'
> Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
> No, my basic point is that there are vastly different access
> expectations related to products closed by policy vs. the
> more traditional group of closed products (again voting
> machines). Trying to write technical standards for a group
> of products this diverse will be extremely difficult.
> Many closed by policy product examples are public use
> computer stations. If a public employment center has a
> computer lab that individuals can use to create a resume,
> apply on-line for jobs, etc. the policy may be that the
> computers are closed in that the public cannot load their own
> AT. However, that doesn't mean that individual stations
> within the lab are not loaded with AT with some stations
> designed to provide adaptive output and others adaptive input
> options. If instead each station must meet a set of built-in
> access standards, the robustness of the access will not
> likely be equal to that provided by the AT on individual stations.
>
> Products like voting machines or specific use kiosks tend to
> have a much narrower purpose/focus that makes it a little
> easier to determine where to draw the line on what should be
> built in access. That will be exceedingly difficult to do
> with computer stations closed by policy.
>
> Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
> Missouri Assistive Technology
> 816/350-5280 (direct voice)
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> www.at.mo.gov
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rex Lint [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:10 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC self contained/closed
> products subcommittee'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'
> Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
>
> Diane,
>
> Are you inferring that a PC, if it's "closed by policy,"
> needs MORE ACCESSIBILITY than a "closed, self-contained
> product"? I assume that you're thinking that the level of
> acc'y specified for closed products is insufficient. If
> that's the case, let's change the level of acc'y for those.
>
> Is it the case, in your mind, that if a vendor chooses a PC
> as the basis of a product that is closed, they incur a
> heavier burden to make it more accessible than had they built
> it from discrete logic? That would seem to be steering
> vendors in directions that might be, overall, not so good.
>
> Rex
>
> Rex Lint, Consultant
> Chair, Section 508 Working Group
> Information Technology Association of America
> PH: 603-860-7651, FAX: 603-882-6612
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:23 AM
> To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; 'TEITAC self contained/closed
> products subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
> So to be 508 "conformant" each computer system closed by
> policy would need to have scanning software to allow for
> switch access? Would any kind of built-in screen enlargement
> be OK, or would the magification need to meet a specific
> magnification standard as the VVSG requires?
>
> Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
> Missouri Assistive Technology
> 816/350-5280 (direct voice)
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> www.at.mo.gov
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:57 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC self contained/closed
> products subcommittee'
> Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
>
> Yes. I would say that is correct. If a product is closed
> (e.g. a kiosk) or otherwise closed by policy, the only way
> that people with disabilities can access and use it is if the
> accessibility is built in. This does not need
> to require AT. Almost all technologies from computers to phones have
> speech capability. Voicing can just be part of the software
> package used
> on the closed product (e.g. kiosk or card catalog etc.).
>
> The alternative is that people with disabilities cannot use
> them and cannot make them accessible - which is the opposite
> of the goal of 508.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
> > Golden
> > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:17 PM
> > To: 'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> > closed,self-contained products
> >
> > While I don't have an issue with this defintion from a theoretical
> > perspective -- it is not likely practical as a
> > 508 definition of closed, self-contained products so long
> as there is
> > a robust set of technical access standards to which such
> products must
> > conform. Specifically, if all products that meet the closed,
> > self-contained definition need to conform to the technical
> standands
> > for closed, self-contained products and those standards require
> > built-in access features comparable to something like the voting
> > system standards (speech output, large visual display output,
> > alternative input options, etc.) then public use computers
> (closed by
> > policy) would need to have a whole bunch of AT built into
> the system
> > or be loaded on so that each computer would meet the standards.
> >
> > Diane
> >
> > Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
> > Vanderheiden
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 3:35 PM
> > To: 'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> > closed,self-contained products
> >
> >
> > Definition of Closed that was presented at Plenary
> >
> > Any product where the user is prevented from installing or
> attaching
> > adaptive assistive technology due to physical, electrical or policy
> > restrictions.
> >
> > - this can be specific to the application rather than the
> hardware.
> > That is, a desktop computer that is purchased with library card
> > catalog software (where the desktop computer will be locked down)
> > would be closed and could only be evaluated with AT if the
> AT was to
> > be installed in the closed
> > products as purchased. Similarly a PC in a Kiosk would be
> > closed. A PC
> > on a user's desktop where the user can install any software
> they need
> > would not be closed.
> >
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University