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: Jim Tobias
Date: Fri, Dec 22 2006 2:40 PM

I was quoting Gregg's comments about what to include or exclude in any
"closed" determination. I *thought* I was speaking very much in favor of AT
innovation, but maybe I wasn't clear. Here's what I mean. Let's look at 3
cases for an "appliance"-type product:

1. has native accessibility (built-in accessibility features)
2. has no native accessibility, but there is AT
3. has no native accessibility, and no current AT

The goal is to move more products into categories #1 and #2. Not to
eliminate #2, but to expand it. More consumer/procurer choice.

A mainstream company with a #3 product has 3 options:

a. give up on federal sales
b. add native accessibility
c. partner with or otherwise encourage an AT company to develop an AT
solution for the product


_____

From: Randy Marsden (Home) [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 11:51 AM
To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee; 'TEITAC Web/Software
Subcommittee'
Cc: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"





Jim Tobias wrote:

What does "... works with AT" mean -- only current AT? We should not be
constrained by the current crop of AT. The goal of the regs is to stimulate
native accessibility in products that don't have it right now, and to
stimulate AT where native accessibility is not feasible or reasonable.

I find this language disturbing. My impression was the goal of the regs was
to make mainstream technology more accessible to people with disabilities -
not necessarily to explicitly drive built-in accessibility. Many people
with disabilities prefer to use their own AT, even when a product has its
own built-in accessibility. The two are not mutually exclusive, nor should
be. (Although the current wording of 508 tends to separate them by using
the word "or" in the functional performance criteria - perhaps something we
should look at). I think the best situation is when both exist.

"constrained by the current crop of AT". AT is evolving even as IT is. I
think what has been suggested for wording is something along the lines of
"works with readily available AT". That doesn't constrain the regs to the
current crop of AT - it leaves room for whatever AT is developed in the
future that becomes readily available.

-Randy Marsden
ATIA






_____

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