Thread Subject: Re: Basic questions

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Nov 15 2006 8:20 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Basic questions"
• Previous message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Basic questions"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

I think this is a good approach. We need to bound our problem before we try
to solve it in detail.

Some additional comments below.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 5:51 AM
> To: 'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'
> Subject: [teitac-closed] Basic questions
>
> Hi All,
>
> Please forgive me, but I feel that we're trying to make
> progress by small adjustments to the Standards but missing
> the larger picture. Here are the kinds of products I think
> we're trying to address:
>
> 1. appliance-type ICT, like calculators

GV: We need to characterize this better to keep from copiers being
considered appliances (which they should be) but it is a good category.
Maybe something like "personal workstation ICT below $xxx for which there
are accessible alternative that the user can requisition". A bit long but
it covers the main issues that would bar a person from being able to get an
accessible version.


> 2. peripherals like printers that don't typically have their
> own user interface

GV: "their own local user interface" (hmmmm are there enough of these?
And don't printers even have a local interface? I use the buttons on mine
all the time - and have no idea how to do those functions from my computer.
But it guess if the product DID provide those remotely it could function.
But it would seem to only make sense for devices with a small number (or
none) of seldom used buttons.


3. public transaction terminals where the
> content or transaction is not sensitive, such as a
> specially-configured PC used for access to a library's
> electronic catalog

GV: This might be considered personal information. Maybe a subway ticket
machine might be better example - one like WASH DC that wouldn't announce
your destination to the world - though a headphone jack could (should) be
required so this wouldnt be a problem.


4. public transaction terminals where the
> content or transaction is sensitive, such as voting machine
>

GV: Good - a couple more examples good here ATMs, Employment Application
Kiosk

> Am I missing any product sub-categories here?
>
> Let me propose a straw man.
>
> For #1, grant an exception because suitable alternative
> appliances are available. That is, don't require an agency
> to purchase only talking calculators because it's burdensome
> and because talking calculators are available.
>
> For #2, require that all functions be able to be performed
> from a workstation (a particular user's workstation or one
> connected to the peripheral). This means that my
> screen-reader-equipped computer can operate the
> printer/copier remotely, because all functions (including
> status readout like empty paper trays) are exposed. This
> would be a significant step forward, and appears to be fully feasible.

GV: good but I don't think it should be accessible if it COULD be
controlled from a workstation attached. A workstation would need to be
attached. (for copiers -- for printers I think the above discussion would
hold and a personal workstation access could be used. Maybe the test is 'if
the interface on the device is not normally used to operate the device"


>
> For #3, require the terminal to (a) support all accessibility
> features native to the operating system the terminal uses and
> (b) provide either permanently installed assistive technology
> functionality, or the use of a temporary installation of
> assistive technology. This means in (a) that the terminal
> basically running an operating system must permit users to
> access the OS features. In (b) it means the device must have
> been configured with AT (e.g. built-in screen reader) or
> permit temporary AT (e.g. screen reader on a flash drive,
> NCITS V2 network download of an alternate interface, EZ Access).

GV: Good - but if they can install software it wouldn't be closed would it?
Still good to cover here.

>
> For #4, to what extent can we use the voting machine
> standards the way we're using WCAG and ISO for web and
> software? A lot of work has gone into them, and if certain
> sections can be adopted or adapted, why not do so?

I think this is an excellent situation for this approach. For a number of
reasons.

>
> ***********
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> skype jimtobias
> www.inclusive.com
>
>

• Next message in Thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Basic questions"
• Previous message in Thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Basic questions"