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: Randy Marsden (Home)
Date: Mon, Dec 18 2006 11:40 AM

Debbie / All:

You¹re identified one of the exact reasons we want to combine. The world of
technology isn¹t divided as it was 5 years ago. The fact that a phone can
be a computer, which can be an MP3 player, which can be an electronic
calendar, which can be a browser, etc. is WHY we feel a need to combine.
We¹d like to get going doing meaningful work, but keep bumping up against
the question ³does that issue fall within our purview, or is some other
sub-committee going to handle it?². Take Smartphones, for example. Where
do we deal with the mechanical interfaces, the software interfaces, the
telecom interfaces? My opinion is they get dealt with in each of the
respective sub-committees: Hardware, Software, Telecom.

It would be nice to get the issue settled ­ one way or the other, so we can
start diving into the real work. The proposal is for the co-chairs to
consider and for them to ultimately make a decision.

-Randy
>
> From: "Debbie Cook" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Reply-To: "TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 08:33:47 -0800
> To: "TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware)
> subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Cc: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] [teitac-closed] Combined HardwareSubcommittee
> Proposal
>

> I've weighed in on this at the self-contained call but not on these lists.
> While I think that "closed" is potentially a subdivision of all
> topics--hardwre, software and telecomm in particular, it must be addressed
> distinctly. If I am procuring a product and it contains phone hardware for
> example, and it's software features include phone, browser, calendaring,
> text messaging, and whatever else, but there is either no way to add AT to
> it or there is no AT for some or all of the functions, the product is in
> effect closed. We've made some progress on the phone parts of these products
> for some people, and less on some other parts. And there are a host of
> products which now do include video (indicating a need for captioning). What
> I see happening in software is that they're thinking pretty litterally about
> software running on a PC or close approximation. And I read in this thred
> that people would propose not to discuss things like captioning in the
> combined PC and closed group. Well, essentially we spend our energy dividing
> the territory and inadvertently avoiding the real issue which is that there
> are an increasing host of products which by their design and scope currently
> do not lend themselves to accessibility. In these cases it's not necessarily
> that the hardware is inaccessible, but rather the combined functions of the
> product software and hardware along with the need for additional features
> such as captioning.
>
> I don't care where we address self-contained products, whether separtely or
> together with hardware, but I'm concerned that the energy on territory would
> be better spent on working out the solutions even if there is overlap, and
> letting the final sort out in editing.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC self contained/closed products
> subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Cc: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 8:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-hardware] Combined HardwareSubcommittee
> Proposal
>
>
> 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