Thread Subject: Repost of Jim's Straw Man Proposal

From: Debbie Cook
Date: Tue, Dec 05 2006 2:20 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Randy Marsden: "Repost of Jim's Straw Man Proposal & ClosedDefinition Proposal"
• Previous message in thread: None
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

For our discussion on the call:



1. appliance-type ICT, like calculators

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

interface

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

4. public transaction terminals where the content or transaction is

sensitive, such as voting machine



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.



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).



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?

• Next message in Thread: Randy Marsden: "Repost of Jim's Straw Man Proposal & ClosedDefinition Proposal"
• Previous message in Thread: None