Thread Subject: Re: CombinedHardwareSubcommittee 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 2:50 PM

Hmmmm

Agree. But it isn't product type but product size that is the deciding
factor. A pocket computer would have smaller max font than a desk
telephone. Or a computer based phone.




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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Yamada@TOYO-UNIV
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 11:22 AM
To: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC self
contained/closed products subcommittee'; 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware)
subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-general]
[teitac-hardware]CombinedHardwareSubcommittee Proposal

All,



I would like to add the other point, namely loss of quantitative natures in
the case of only having the general part in our technical specifications.



For example, let us consider font size. Everyone agrees a clause that
requests "users can change the font size." But this is not a good clause
since no one can determine the maximum font size. If the clause is applied
to a small display in mobile, the maximum could be 1/4 or 1/3 inch of
height. If it is applied to a display of desktop PC, the maximum could be 2
inches or more.



If we have the telecom equipment part and the PC hardware part separately,
we can write these quantitative measures in clauses. Therefore, it is not
appropriate to merge all the sub-parts into one general part.



Hajime Yamada

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