Thread Subject: Re: CombinedHardwareSubcommittee Proposal

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Dec 21 2006 5:40 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: CombinedHardwareSubcommittee Proposal"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

I think the question isn't whether they are open or not. It is whether
users can use AT with them to gain access. If no AT exists, can a product
be called accessible? If accessible means that it can be used by people
with disabilities - then no.

Is Section 508 about making things meet a certain standard, or making
companies do things? I didn't think so. I thought it was about having
an E&IT infrastructure that people with disabilities can use. If there is
no AT, and no built in access, then it would not be accessible.

So I think that is the question we should ask.

Is it either 1) directly accessible or 2) accessible through AT that the
user will have (and are permitted to use) when they encounter it.

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> David Poehlman
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 7:22 PM
> To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
> Cc: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee;
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] [teitac-hardware]
> [teitac-closed] CombinedHardwareSubcommittee Proposal
>
> IPods and other portables can be written to and from. In
> some cases, software can be loaded on them so are they really
> self contained any more than a computer with its software and
> operating system?
>
> On Dec 18, 2006, at 8:06 PM, Randy Marsden wrote:
>
> A few more thoughts, after some in-person conversations today:
>
> 1. "Self-Contained", and "Closed" are not synonymous. A
> self-contained product can still be accessible.
> 2. Many Self-Contained products do not fit comfortably into
> the same barrel as computers (such as office equipment like
> copiers, fax machines, etc).
> 3. Re-emphasize: "Closed" is not a category of product, but
> an attribute that can describe a product in all of the
> categories (if it can't be accessed by people with disabilities).
> 4. "Hardware" seems to be too broad a category (but "Desktops
> & Portables"
> too specific). "Computer Hardware" would nicely cover
> desktops, laptops, portable handhelds, the computer portion
> of Smartphones, etc. It would likely also cover the gadgets
> that have not been invented yet, but will be between now and
> the next 508 refresh.
>
> So, a possible revision to the "merger" proposal would be the
> following:
>
> Leave the current sub-committees in place, but tweak
> their names & scopes as follows:
>
> OLD NAME: "Self-Contained & Closed Systems"
> NEW NAME: "Self-Contained"
> SCOPE: E&IT products which are self-contained, meaning
> they are
> not typically open to third-party software or hardware
> add-ons. They are not "computers" in the traditional sense.
>
> OLD NAME: "Desktops and Portables"
> NEW NAME: "Computer Hardware"
> SCOPE: E&IT products that provide for
> third-party software
> and/or hardware add-ons. For greater certainty, this
> includes, but is not limited to: desktop computers, notebook
> computers, PDA's, handheld computers, Tablet PC's, UMPC's,
> Smartphones, and Dataphones. In the case of converged
> devices (such as Smartphones), the Computer Hardware
> subcommittee would deal with the computer-specific aspects of
> the hardware only, and leave the device-specific aspects of
> the hardware to the other respective sub-committees (ie.
> Telecom, A/V, etc). In other words, Telecom still deals with
> issues related to carriers, TTY's, etc. A/V still deals with
> TV tuner issues, etc. Computer Hardware deals with computer
> industry-standard ports and interfaces (like USB, etc).
>
> So where do media players fit? (ie. iPod, Zune, etc). At
> the moment, I would say they are Self-Contained.
>
> Comments?
>
> -Randy Marsden
> ATIA
>

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: CombinedHardwareSubcommittee Proposal"