Thread Subject: Re: "closed software"

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: Fri, Dec 22 2006 8:10 AM

The hardware is not closed but the software is. It is not designed to
accept AT.

The fact that at product can be upgraded by its manufacturer with
proprietary software - or even that it allows 3rd party extensions - is a
different issue from whether it works with AT.



But maybe you are just trying to focus on the fact that the word "closed" is
ambiguous. And often misinterpreted.



Hmmm



I think that may be a key point.



I suggest we stop using the word "closed" since it is universally ambiguous
and very often misinterpreted. Instead we should say what we mean.



"Products that do not work with AT" and then say what should be true "must
provide built in access". And then specify what is "good enough" built in
access. (and also what AT is good enough.



Hmmmmm .. interesting




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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 6:59 AM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC self contained/closed
products subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"

Randy wrote, regarding iPods that it's an example of "closed software", even
given David Poehlman's identification of "Rock Box" as alternative
interface. I don't see how this is so.



1. iPods are designed to accept software upgrades from Apple, so they are
not "closed" in that aspect, at least. Apple could somehow lock out all
software changes that did not come thorough Apple themselves, but they
appear not to have done that. Even in that case, the "closedness" would be
by policy, not by technological feasibility.



2. "Rock Box" is an example of a third-party software solution to some
accessibility issues that can be loaded onto an iPod. Assuming that the
original iPod interface can be restored somehow, doesn't that make the iPod
almost like a PC, able to run with or without a screen reader, not like a
product



***********
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
skype jimtobias
www.inclusive.com






_____


From: Randy Marsden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:46 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee; TEITAC self contained/closed products
subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"

My iPod description given in emails yesterday is one such example.

-Randy


From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:55:58 -0500
To: "'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"



In the discussion of closed products, we seem to be converging on the
opinion that "closed" is a characteristic, not a category. In this context,
software has been mentioned as potentially closed. Can someone please give
me an example, or a further explanation, of what closed software might be?

***********
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
skype jimtobias
www.inclusive.com

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