Thread Subject: 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: Takemura, Michael (HP Accessibility)
Date: Tue, Nov 14 2006 11:40 PM

Sorry for jumping into this late, but have been tied up w/ IDEAS and
travel.

At the TETIAC meeting last week in D.C., I mentioned that we need to be
careful
how these standards are applied to products that are 'closed' due to a
Federal Agency policy.
IT manufacturers have no control over how a product is going to be used,
nor what environment
it is going to be used. Desktop computers may be used on a desktop,
and they may be used
as part of a KIOSK that is a "closed" product 'solution'. The
integrator or agency would
need to decide to apply the closed/self-contained standards to that
'solution' - but I can't
imagine that all desktop computers are considered closed.

Am I missing the point ?

Michael

Michael Takemura
Director, HP Accessibility Program Office
http://www.hp.com/accessibility
Phone: 281 518-0739 (Central Time CDT/CST)
Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
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