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: Sun, Jan 21 2007 11:15 PM

That does work for their software because their software is designed to work
with presses only in those places. Most touch screen software changes the
position of buttons from screen to screen. Tactile button overlays won't
work for that.

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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-hardware-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David Poehlman
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 9:46 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Cc: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-
> closed]"touchscreens"
>
> Hi Greg and all,
>
> On the del pdas used by humanware for trekker/maesro, there are only
> a few fixed controls and they are mechanical. Tthee touch screen is
> overlayed with a sleve containing a mechanicall keyboard which fits
> precicely over the display and thuus can be used to controll the
> device.. In this case though, the humanware software takes over the
> pda so that the overlay correspponds to ffunctiionality pertaining to
> the software used to drive the device.
>
> What I would propose is an overlay which would pprovide tactation but
> not necessarily be mechanical. I read in a recent faq though tht it
> is not possible to use the device with gloves though so I'm guessing
> your skin has to come into contact with it.
>
> On Jan 17, 2007, at 8:08 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>
> 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