Thread Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

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: Randy Marsden (Home)
Date: Tue, Jan 16 2007 5:12 PM

It¹s premature to conclude anything about the iPhone until we actually see
one and know more about the OS. But generally speaking, a touch interface
with back-lit LCD should be MORE accessible to people with low vision,
prosthetics, arthritis, or mobility impairments because on-screen buttons at
least have the potential of being made larger, displayed with greater
contrast, be scan-able, etc. (ie. More accessible than other devices with
small physical buttons). Touch screens also usually require less force than
mechanical buttons to activate.

The down-side of a touch interface is that a person who is blind can¹t feel
the controls before activating them (a requirement in the present 508). So,
a touchscreen interface is an example of something that actually helps one
group of people with disabilities while making it difficult for another.
We¹re struggling with touch interfaces right now on the Hardware Sub-con.
The present version of Section 508 appears to be heavily weighted toward
people who can¹t see, to the potential detriment of other types of
disabilities. Some sort of functional split in the requirements seems
needed.

-Randy
>
> From: "Tom Brett" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:01:09 -0500
> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>

> In addition to the blind customers, people with low vision, prosthetics,
> arthritis and other mobility problems will not be able to operate this unit.
> While it is a marvel of technology it appears to be limited to only a certain
> class of persons
>
>
>
> Tom Brett
>
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Lazzaro, Joe
> (ITD)
> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:35 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>
>
>
> From what I hear, mostly from the "Blind Confidential" blog, the iPhone may be
> inaccessible for blind users. I've also heard that the phone runs OS X, which
> could be beneficial if true. Maybe the phone will support VoiceOver? But the
> initial rumblings I'm hearing are that the ipPhone may be inaccessible,
> especially for blind consumers.
>
>
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Joe Lazzaro
> Manager: Assistive Technology Group
> Information Technology Division
> Commonwealth of Massachusetts
> One Ashburton Place
> Room 1601
> Boston, MA 02108
> Voice: 617-626-4410
> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Web: www.Mass.gov/ITD
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
> Vanderheiden
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:32 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC self contained/closed products
> subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>
> I think this is a good example of how we need to think of 'closed¹ as a
> condition ­ not as a type of software or hardware.
>
>
>
>
>
> Anyone know more about the iphone? They said it was based on OS X but it
> could be just a small version of it (like windows and windows mobile).
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randy
>> Marsden (Home)
>> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:32 AM
>> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee; 'TEITAC Web/Software
>> Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>>
>> Jim ­ I see this is a repost from the same email sent on Dec 22nd. My
>> apologies for not responding back then.
>>
>> We¹re starting to split hairs here, but technically I think the iPod could be
>> characterized as follows:
>> 1. The iPod hardware is an example of open hardware, since there is a port
>> that allows 3rd party software to be loaded on the device (ie. Rock Box).
>> 2. The iPod operating system as shipped from Appleis an example of closed
>> software, since it does not allow 3rd party application software or assistive
>> technology software to be loaded inaddition to the existing software that it
>> ships with.
>>
>> I think you¹re accurate in drawing the analogy between the iPod hardware and
>> PC hardware. Loading Rock Box on an iPod is analogous to purchasing a PC
>> with Windows loaded, but then reformatting the hard drive and loading Linux
>> instead. Same PC ­ different operating systems. So, in terms of definition,
>> I think you would still have to characterize the iPod¹s software as closed
>> (but its hardware as open).
>>
>> So what defines a product? Its hardware, its software, or the combination of
>> both? When the federal government purchases iPods for their employees to use
>> for training purposes, I assume they are thinking of the latter. If a
>> Department bids out and receives 500 computer running Windows, they don¹t
>> expect some people to remove Windows and load Linux instead (or visa versa).
>> With respect to the iPod, they probably have little instruction manuals
>> written that say things like:
>>
>> ³To listen to module 1 of the training, navigate to the Music menu, select
>> Playlists, and choose ?Module 1¹².
>>
>> I doubt there is an addendum to the manual that says:
>>
>> ³If you have a disability, back up all the content of the iPod, load the new
>> operating system called Rock Box by connecting a USB cable from your iPod to
>> your computer that is running the Rock Box installation software (which
>> you¹ll need to obtain on-line), restore the content (and try to keep it in
>> the same order), and then find Module 1. And by the way, since there is no
>> text-to-speech engine that comes with Rock Box, you will need to find ?Module
>> 1² by listening to each letter pronounced ³m², ³o², ³d², and so on.
>>
>> This just doesn¹t seem like an equitable solution for people with
>> disabilities. If the government hands them an iPod for training, it should
>> be accessible as-is, or with the addition of AT. Right now it isn¹t, so I
>> would call that ³closed² (ie. Not accessible on its own, and not possible to
>> add AT that makes it accessible to people with disabilities).
>>
>> -Randy
>>
>> PS: Maybe the repost is because of the recent announcement of the iPhone,
>> which is also an iPod, and running OS X, which (I think) is open, and
>> completely changes my iPod argument! ;-) See how fast technology
>> changes...?
>>
>>
>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Reply-To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:01:39 -0500
>> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC self contained/closed products
>> subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [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