Thread Subject: Re: Basic questions

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: Jim Tobias
Date: Wed, Nov 15 2006 9:00 AM

> > -----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.

I don't think the price criterion will work. The idea is an ICT
hardware product that never connects with anything else (somehow
have to add fax machines that DO connect, but not for control purposes)

> > 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.

I don't understand this. It's feasible to add all the printer's functions
to a remote utility. The printer could still have the buttons, but we
would be requiring a remote capability for every function you could perform
right
in front of the thing. I honestly can't come up with a problem here. And
I can't support any feasibility counter-argument either -- this is not hard
to do. In fact, as we know, most of this capability is built into these
products for QA testing in the factory; it's just not exposed to the user

> > Let me propose a straw man.
> >
<snip>
> >
> > 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"

You're right; you're raising the agency's responsibility to actually
connect the workstation or let the employee connect via his/her workstation.
I was thinking of the procurement side of things -- what's in the RFP.

> > 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.

That's the point -- I think the whole category of "closed" need no longer
exist,
except for #1 products, like calculators, and I'm suggesting we grant them
an exception because there are accommodating alternatives.

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