Thread Subject: Defining "Closed"

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: Randy Marsden
Date: Tue, Dec 05 2006 5:20 PM

On today¹s teleconference, I promised to post an email to the list that
fleshes out the three characterizations a bit more. I¹ll get to that in the
next few days, but my gut says inaccessible is inaccessible and all three
characterizations should be treated as such ­ and maybe that¹s as far as
Section 508 goes.

But the value of categorizing Closed Systems comes in deciding what to do
about it . The process for making a closed system open is very different,
depending on which of the three categories of ³closed² it falls into.

-Randy
>
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Reply-To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 16:38:02 -0600
> To: "'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Repost of Jim's Straw Man Proposal & Closed
> Definition Proposal
>

> Very good suggestion Randy. And very good characterization.
>
>
>
> Interestingly, to a person with a disability ­ all three are not accessible.
> Does that mean same provisions apply?
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randy Marsden
>> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2006 3:22 PM
>> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
>> Subject: [teitac-closed] Repost of Jim's Straw Man Proposal & Closed
>> Definition Proposal
>>
>> There is value in defining all three categories of ³Closed Products²:
>> 1. ³Technically closed² (ie. Not opento AT)
>> 2. ³Closed by Policy², and
>> 3. ³Open to AT, but no AT exists².
>>
>> If a product is in the latter category, then a solution could be technically
>> produced. If AT doesn¹t exist today, yet the mainstream manufacturer did
>> everything they needed to do in order to open up their product to AT, then at
>> least half the battle is won. After that, market forces should lead AT
>> manufacturers to provide the solution. (I know that¹s a ³perfect world²
>> scenario, but AT manufacturers are in the business of providing AT solutions,
>> and if enough demand exists for a solution, they will make it).
>>
>> The real question then becomes ³what if the market forces (or other factors)
>> are not enough to entice AT vendors to create a solution?². In this case,
>> does the burden of accessibility rest on the original mainstream
>> manufacturer? In other words, are they required to create the AT themselves
>> (or build in accessibility)? An example of that very thing happening is the
>> Voice Over screen reader made by Apple for Mac OSX.
>>
>> However, if a mainstream product is technically closed to AT (and doesn¹t
>> have built-in accessibility of its own), then there is no hope of making it
>> accessible ­ market forces or not. It would be helpful to know which product
>> fits into which category.
>>
>> -Randy Marsden, ATIA
>>
>>
>> From: "Debbie Cook" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Reply-To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Date: Tue, 5 Dec 2006 13:16:43 -0800
>> To: "TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Subject: [teitac-closed] Repost of Jim's Straw Man Proposal
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

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