Thread Subject: Re: "closed software"

From: Randy Marsden (Home)
Date: Fri, Dec 22 2006 11:25 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Randy Marsden (Home): "Re: "closed software""
• Previous message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: "closed software""
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Thanks for the clarification, Jim. I agree with your thoughts below.

-Randy
>
> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Reply-To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2006 16:32:14 -0500
> To: "'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Cc: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] [teitac-closed] [teitac-websoftware] "closed
> software"
>

> 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 ³or² in the functional performance criteria
>>>> ­ perhaps something we should look at). I think the best situation is when
>>>> both exist.
>>>>
>>>> ³constrained by the current crop of AT². AT is evolving even as IT is. I
>>>> think what has been suggested for wording is something along the lines of
>>>> ³works with readily available AT². That doesn¹t 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

• Next message in Thread: Randy Marsden (Home): "Re: "closed software""
• Previous message in Thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: "closed software""