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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Jan 17 2007 7:00 AM

Correct.
It wouldn't be directly accessible and the access device would be larger
than the product!

Also, if it is OS X - is it full OS X or a subset.
If you replace its software with new software that is accessible -- is
the product accessible or have we just demonstrated that you can make an
accessible product with the hardware.

Lots of questions...




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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Brett, Thomas F
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:20 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Cc: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] [teitac-websoftware]
> [teitac-closed]"touchscreens"
>
> Gregg said:
>
> "it has Bluetooth and may accept a Bluetooth keyboard or keypad."
>
> Adding additional equipment to this device could result in
> creating an Iphone that is accessible but that would not mean
> that the Iphone, itself, meets the current 508 standards. If
> reprogramming is possible to allow a keypad or keyboard to be
> attached to the device, that would be a accommodation. In
> addition the customer would be required to carry additional
> equipment so the device can be used.
>
>
>
> Tom Brett,
> 2026061206
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:09 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Cc: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "touchscreens"
>
> For the most part, tactilely discernable controls are
> mechanical including
> flat membrane panels with tactile markers. There are
> exceptions like a
> glass control panel where the controls are painted on and
> tactile markers are provided.
>
> On the iphone, there are a limited number of fixed controls
> (volume, 'silent', home button, etc.) but most of the
> controls are on the touchscreen. If full control were
> possible from the tactile controls then it would pass. Also,
> it has Bluetooth and may accept a Bluetooth keyboard or
> keypad. That would require reprogramming though.
>
>
> This all gets back to the definition of closed and how we
> want to use that term though.
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of David
> > Poehlman
> > Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 8:34 PM
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Cc: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [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:
> >
> > 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