Thread Subject: Re: Some comments on theSpreadsheet (excel/html)
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: Sun, Jan 21 2007 10:40 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: None
- Previous message in thread: None
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Hi Greg and all,
I may not be fully understanding the comments below correctly but
I've placed my assertionss in line and only left those in which I've
addressed. There are questions here but I hope this results in
clarity where now some of it is unclear and that we gain informationn
where things are not understood but should stand.
On Jan 20, 2007, at 10:53 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
Comments relate to the attached spreadsheet that Randy Posted to desktop
portable list. Both XML and HTML versions attached.
This will be difficult to achieve with touch-screen devices. How do you
"feel" a virtual on-screen button before activating it?
This is a good comment. But most touch screen devices also have
discernable buttons. (The iphone does for example). So we should add
"This would be difficult to achieve on a touch screen device unless all
information and functionality from the touchscreen are also
the tactilely discernable controls.'
dp I would say that it would also be possible to operate a touch
screen if there were audible/otherwise (vibratory) discernable
feedback and the ability to confirm selections.
Where provided, at least one of each type of expansion slots,vports and
connectors shall comply with available industry standards.
Do we ever define what an industry standard is? The Ipod connector
proprietary connector - but is a de facto standard since there is a huge
industry with many many companies that use it. They may pay a royalty.
But did you know that the standard phone connector that is on all
the last 30 years or so is a standard but you also had to pay a
use it in a product (or you did til the patent ran out)? Ditto for the
HDMI connector. So what do we call a standard connector? Any
that is used on a product? Any connector that is documented and other
companies can use?
dp: I may be saying the same thing here but I think what we are
trying to get at is that a power connector should look like a power
connector. an ethernet connector shouldd look like one and so on.
In other words, I wouldn't expect an ethernet connector to look and
act like an usb connector danger will robinson, you just blew up your
This is important for AT, as it is the way to get "in" to the
Bluetooth are important. But having the hardware interface is only
battle - software drivers are also necessary to accept and arbitrate
input. (Something for the Software subcommittee?)
This is an excellent comment. And not covered in 508. maybe we
"connection" instead of 'connector"
dp: connection or connector might be a bit missleading since they
both seem to imply hardware. I know that we talk about establishing
a wifi connection or a bluetooth connection, but what we are actually
doing is establishing communications between devices. I cannot think
of one word that adequatelyy expresses the connection of hardware
devices and establishment of communications in a non hardware way
H20 says (in part)
Discussion on "BIOS" (basic input output system) of a computer. This is
used to make low-level adjustments to the hardware. Typically a
activity. Some say BIOS needs to be accessible. Technical difficulties
since the OS is not yet running at the time of boot-bios, and normal
AT & IT
software not yet running. In some cases, bios settings can be done via
utility software after the computer has booted up from the normal
Is that good enough?
I would say that 'if access during boot up (done by bios software) is
of daily operation - like a company that requires you to have a bios
password that must be entered before a laptop will boot, then any such
interaction needs to be accessible. If the only time you need
the bios routines is for settup or maintenance then you would only
to be accessible if you determine that setup and maintenance need to be
accessible. And for setup- access when the laptop is fully booted
cover the issue.
dp: this is a bit too fine a split. I think this can be addressed in
one stroke such as something like: "access shall be provided to any
maintenance operation which will be dperformed by a person with a
Categorization of levels of interoperability: 1) Not accessible by
and not compatible with AT; 2) Not accessible by itself, but compatible
with AT; 3) Accessible by itself, but not compatible with AT; 4)
Accessible by itself and compatible with AT. We need to address each of
these categories: which ones are 508 compliant, and which ones aren't?
This is good. IF the users will have the AT required (or it would be
provided to them) I would say 2,3 and 4. If it required AT that the
users don't have and won't be given then I would say only 3 and 4. I
would presume all gov employees would be given the AT they need by
so #2 would always be ok but that members of the public would not and
for E&IT that the public would need to use to access gov info - one
have to look at what AT they are likely to have.
I personally feel that for productivity devices such as a personal
where you must be efficient to be competitive on the job that only
#4 would be sufficient (i.e. AT compatibility would be required) but
people on the TEITAC have challenged that.
dp: what does accessible mean? If number 3 is truly im play, it does
not ever have to be accessible to AT.
If number 3 is truly in play, number 4 does not need to exist. It's
a shame for a product to be fully accessible but have the ability to
disable the access so that someone can use their AT. Oh, I know, we
don't want to have to learn something new and perhaps different, but
if standards are followed, things aren't much different. I learned
the MAC. It's accessible to me but different. I know all people
aren't like me but then why not just give people something they can
use in that case which is accessible thrugh their AT. I'm trying
unsuccessfully it seems to put across something which comes down to
the fact that if our goal is accessibility, we don't want to encumber
its progrress or obstruct it.
Section 1194.31 (f) We discussed the issue of why AT was left out of
sub-part (f), when it was included in (a) - (e). We considered Doug
Wakefield's explanation of this, which was that there were mechanical
interfaces related to mobility impairments, for which there is not AT
as laptop latches, on/off buttons, etc). The intent was to not let IT
manufacturers "off the hook" for accessibility requirements for which
is no AT. The problem here is that there IS AT for other access problems
related to people with mobility impairments (such as mouse and keyboard
We identified that there are access issues for which AT does not
others for which it does. This is not a fact related to Mobility
(sub-part f) only; it is the same for all types of disabilities. This
out the need for a definition separating the Functional Performance
into at least two categories: functions for which AT exists, and
for which it does not.
I think the way to address this is to change these to say
"All functions are operable by [ insert disability type] through at
one mode of operation either directly or using AT that the users are
to have with them."
dp: Can we use something other than disability here? Is there a more
operative way to express our intent? I only raise this because it is
access which is important, not disability type? and also, one type
of solution might fit several types?
- Next message in Thread: None
- Previous message in Thread: None