Thread Subject: Re: Combined HardwareSubcommittee Proposal

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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Dec 18 2006 9:15 AM

Thanks Randy



This whole topic raises some interesting questions that we didn?t address in
our first meetings.



We started out forming the groups strictly along 508 guidelines categories.
Then combined two. Then expanded on. Now another two. And I don't think
there is much rhyme or reason to what we have now.



- By retiring closed products ? I didn?t mean dropping those parts
or dropping the task of figuring out if these provisions were the correct
ones or enough provisions, etc. All that still need to be done. I just
meant that it might be better for the topic to be a shared one. ? with each
group seeing how it related to their work, since ?openness? vs ?closedness?
was a characteristic of all products today.



- RE renaming your group hardware. This seems ok on the surface
but I think we need to look at the whole picture there too. Phones are all
hardware so are you going to take on the telecom hardware issues? And where
are PDAs? PDAs are more similar to phones than to desktops and laptops
(from hardware standpoint). You used to be desktop and laptop.



- Should we be dividing into functional categories? (we are headed
that way)

o Hardware

o Software

o Network ? voice

o Network ? service

o General or indeterminate (could be done in hardware or software)



- Or should we be doing it like the last EITAAC recommended

o General guidelines (that should apply to all E&IT)

* (e.g. ?Do not rely on color alone?)

o Specific guidelines where things shouldn?t apply overall.





Has my head spinning but I don't think we can solve it with individual
groups. We may need to thing about the whole organization structure at the
next TEITAC meeting. It seems like the groups might need to be
reformulated to match whatever we think this might look like at the end.
Right now it look neither like the old 508 or old 255 and not like
anything we want to end up with either. Also there is a lot of overlap.




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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randy Marsden
(Home)
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 12:12 AM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee; 'TEITAC self
contained/closed products subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Combined Hardware Subcommittee Proposal

My comments below. (Randy)



Closed is an attribute ? not a category of products. So we can't sort it
out. If DTandNB takes on the closed issue it would have to also take on
closed software. That may be ok. It just should not be taken that
?closed? only applies to PCs.

True, but I don?t agree that DT and NB should take on closed software. As
per your next comment below, that should be handled by Software and Web.
Note also that we are proposing to change the name of the Desktops and
Portables subcommittee to ?Hardware and Self-Contained?, to make it explicit
that we are no longer only talking about PC?s.




I think all of the groups need to be thinking about ?closed?. Maybe a
better way to think about it is that ?closed? be disbanded and that ALL
groups take on the topic as a THEME as it would apply to their areas.

Agreed. There is a broader implication in what we are proposing here.
Section 508 explicitly includes a section (§1194.25 ) for ?Self-contained,
closed products?. By ?retiring? that subcommittee, are we also saying we
want to retire that part of 508? There is a fair bit of content in that
section that we wouldn?t want to lose. Can we adequately incorporate that
content in the other sub-sections?

-Randy Marsden
ATIA




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

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