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 5:14 PM

Uhmm... OK. Can you explain more what you mean? I don¹t follow.

Tactile means touch. I¹m assuming to be able to feel a control (like a
button), it must have some sort of distinguishing physical characteristic.
Even if it doesn¹t move, it may be raised, have different texture, or have
an outline; something that you can feel.

I¹m assuming on-screen controls, such as the ³answer² button on a
touch-screen phone, are not tactilely discernable as per section 1194.26
(b), which reads:

(b) If a product utilizes touchscreens or touch-operated controls, an input
method shall be provided that complies with §1194.23 (k) (1) through (4).

Section §1194.23 (k) (1) reads:

(1) Controls and keys shall be tactilely discernible without activating the
controls or keys.

This leads me to believe that under the current Section 508, the iPhone (for
example) would not meet the regulations, because only one of its controls
are tactilely discernible ­ the rest are on-screen. But that¹s a shame for
people with mobility impairments, because on-screen controls are exactly
what they need, and tactile buttons that they can¹t actuate needlessly take
up space and get in the way. I¹d like to see us re-word 508 in such a way
that we recognize different accommodations are needed for different types of
disabilities, and requiring one product to fit all may not be desirable ­
especially to consumers. Perhaps that¹s what the section on Functional
Performance Criteria does, with the provisions for AT. Is that true? Does
Subpart C trump Subpart B?

-Randy
>
> From: David Poehlman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Reply-To: "TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 21:33:48 -0500
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Cc: "TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed]
> "touchscreens"
>

> I don't think tactilly discernable means mechanical.
>
> On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:27 PM, Randy Marsden (Home) wrote:
>
> 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'" <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 '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