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

From: Diane Golden
Date: Wed, Nov 15 2006 9:15 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: None
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

The example of requiring a closed product to provide scanning and switch
input is from the voting system access guidelines (VVSG). So yes, it is
required in the VVSG which is a more robust set of standards than the
current 508 technical standards for closed products. However, it was easier
to be a bit more robust in the VVSG because it is a singular use product.
When the functions of the closed product are narrowly defined, it is easier
to identify a baseline for built-in access and develop corresponding access
standards.

This supports Jim's general 4-part categorization of closed products. I can
tell you that procurement folks would appreciate the relief from the current
"buy all tallking calculators" mandate which is how the current 508 rules
play out. It will take quite a bit of work to figure out how to
differenciate between the types without inadvertantly providing "outs" for
products.

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: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:56 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC self contained/closed products
subcommittee'
Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
closed,self-contained products


It would need to meet whatever guidelines closed products need to meet.

To my knowledge we have not required closed products to have scanning input.


It is an interesting question what type of access we want to require of
closed systems. It just says that the product needs to be usable by the
different disabilities .31 and have tactile controls etc. Hmmmm.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Diane Golden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 10:23 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.
> >
> >
> >

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: None