Thread Subject: Re: General Issues:Speechinterfaces and equivalent facilitation

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Jan 10 2007 9:05 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Debbie Cook: "Re: General Issues:Speechinterfacesandequivalent facilitation"
• Previous message in thread: Fratkin, Mike: "Re: General Issues:Speechinterfacesandequivalent facilitation"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Thanks Aubrey,



What i meant was things like workstations. As compared to say an info
kiosk in the lobby.



If it takes you 4 times as long to find a room number it is inconvenient but
doesn't affect your ability to do your job. If it takes you 4 times as
long to enter text on your keyboard though and you are mostly doing that for
a living - then you can get a days work done every 4 or so.





Screen reader compatibility may be needed for workstations even if apps were
all self voicing unless they did so in so harmonious a way that they
performed to the same level as a screen reader.



Just trying to draw a line where AT may be needed even if some type of
access is built in. This would be true for screen readers and perhaps
even more so for people with some physical disabilities where you can't
build in custom interfaces and built in would be limited.




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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:39 AM
To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] [teitac-websoftware] General Issues:
Speechinterfaces and equivalent facilitation


RE:

What if we just said

2) that products that require productivity (e.g. workstations) need to be
accessible to assistive technologies to allow matching of user abilities
necessary to achieve high levels of productivity.

Gregg, could you explain more about what could be considered "products that
require productivity"?

It seems that it could be almost any E&IT product, depending on how it is
being used.

I'm also concerned that if this group of products were only required to be
accessible through AT, manufacturers would no longer be motivated to design
accessibility into the product itself and we may even lose some of the
progress we have gained in this area.

Aubrey

Aubrey Woolley
Government Policy and Compliance Analyst
Government Marketing Division
Canon USA, Inc.
TEL: (703) 807-3158
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =





"Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

01/10/2007 01:19 AM


Please respond to
TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To

"'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >,
"'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


cc




Subject

Re: [teitac-general] [teitac-websoftware] General Issues: Speech
interfaces and equivalent facilitation











I posted something on this earlier that might be helpful to you.

Here, I found it. We need to tweak the words to fit but the basic idea is
here.


What if we just said

1) that products need to be accessible either via available assistive
technology or directly accessible.

2) that products that require productivity (e.g. workstations) need to be
accessible to assistive technologies to allow matching of user abilities
necessary to achieve high levels of productivity.


Since this would apply to the functional performance criteria I am adding
the General list.

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Andi Snow-Weaver
> Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 2:12 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] General Issues: Speech
> interfaces and equivalent facilitation
>
>
> Speech interfaces are being incorporated into some
> applications seemingly replacing the need for screen readers.
> This typically is not equivalent to the functionality of
> screen readers and normally does not interface with
> refreshable Braille displays. It does, however, meet the
> functional performance criteria (31(a)) to provide at least
> one mode of operation and information retrieval that does not
> require user vision (assuming other necessary features such
> as keyboard operation, etc.).
>
> Thoughts on this topic?
>
> Andi
>
>

• Next message in Thread: Debbie Cook: "Re: General Issues:Speechinterfacesandequivalent facilitation"
• Previous message in Thread: Fratkin, Mike: "Re: General Issues:Speechinterfacesandequivalent facilitation"