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: David Poehlman
Date: Tue, Jan 16 2007 5:12 PM

I don't think tactilly discernable means mechanical.

On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:27 PM, Randy Marsden (Home) wrote:

It’s 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
can’t 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.
We’re 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 can’t 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'" <teitac-
> = 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 'closed’
> 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.
>>
>> We’re 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 you’re 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 iPod’s 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 don’t
>> 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:
>>
>> “To listen to module 1 of the training, navigate to the Music
>> menu, select
>> Playlists, and choose ‘Module 1’”.
>>
>> I doubt there is an addendum to the manual that says:
>>
>> “If 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
>> you’ll 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
>> 1” by listening to each letter pronounced “m”, “o”, “d”, and so on.
>>
>> This just doesn’t 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
>> isn’t, so I
>> would call that “closed” (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