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: Sat, Jan 20 2007 9:30 PM

Well lets see

To be accessible then you need all information and all control to be
accessible to AT that a user has.


1) If a product can be completely controlled from a Bluetooth keyboard, then
I think the first part is met since there are Bluetooth adapters for
standard keyboards

2) I don't know of any 'Bluetooth text display" adapters or even a Bluetooth
format for presenting the info on all the displays in text that could be fed
to AT. But if there was then it could be fed to existing AT.

So I think the answer is IF ALL FUNCTION could be done from the BT keyboard
interface then PART of the access would be there.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Rex Lint
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 8:24 AM
> To: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee';
> 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware]
> [teitac-hardware][teitac-closed]"touchscreens"
>
> If a "blue tooth keyboard" and reprogramming could be
> considered to be AT, why don't these "accommodations"
> constitute 508 accessibility? Can a vendor, in this case,
> claim "equivalent facilitation?" Don't we expect and permit
> AT compatibility to be solutions for inaccessibility? If the
> keyboard makes it too big, maybe the "fundamental alteration"
> excuse applies until some AT that is [smaller/more
> accessible] is invented. I think, since equivalent
> facilitation and fundamental alteration are parts of 508, if
> the device were compatible with AT that it WOULD meet the
> definition of 508 accessible.
>
> I think Bluetooth has the potential to be a major enabler for
> accessibility, at least my mind runs wild just thinking about
> possibilities. Then again, it often runs wild anyway.
>
> Rex
>
>
>
> Rex Lint, Consultant
> Chair, Section 508 Working Group
> Information Technology Association of America
> PH: 603-860-7651, FAX: 603-882-6612
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Brett, Thomas F
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:20 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