Thread Subject: FW: Draft Report from General Committee

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: Mon, Feb 05 2007 7:04 AM

Hi All,



Here is a draft of our Report (from the General Committee) . It is pulled
this from our meeting notes.



Please look over the material that was posted last Thursday. We go over in
the meeting and then reflect that in the report along with any other
progress. We will then finalize the report.



The call will be at our regular time.



Everything here is draft but is pulled from our meeting notes, our WIKI and
the summary at the last meeting so we should be pretty good. But give it a
good look and post any questions etc.



Thanks everyone and esp Whitney for her recent efforts.



See you Monday



Gregg and Michael

Co-chairs







DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT - DRAFT -





THIS IS A DRAFT REPORT FOR REVIEW OF THE GENERAL GROUP IN PREP FOR THE
MEETING.


DRAFT - DRAFT - 2nd Report of General Committee DRAFT - DRAFT -


2/6/2007




Executive summary





Purpose of committee




1) to look at cross technology issues

2) to look at issue of combined 508 255 guidelines

3) to look at Functional Performance Criteria

4) to look at issues not covered by other groups






Summary of conclusions and deliverables


This is our second report. In summary we have



1) A proposal for a way to combine the 508 and 255 guidelines

a. it is called a 'blended approach' since it blends a number of
different approaches that we explored.

2) A first pass at wording for Functional Performance Criteria

a. Still preliminary since we feel it is tied into the structure of
the guildelines

3) A method for viewing the guidelines in different ways that also
allows filtering by product characteristics

a. It also shows which guidelines benefit which disabilities

4) An initial set of characteristics that can be used to sort the
provisions

a. Will need to be refined when provisions are final

b. Are practical rather than academic in nature. Selected to optimize
sorting. NOT categorical.

5) A very rough (4 days old) tool to sort provisions.





We have also reached the following conclusions

1) That a unified set of guidelines apparently can be achieved.

2) That the provisions can't be sorted by "product type". There is
simply too much convergence and blending, as well as provisions that apply
across product types.

3) That the provisions can't be sorted by 'disability'. There are
too many provisions that benefit multiple disabilities.

4) That provisions can (and should) be tagged with "product
characteristics" that can make it easier to locate those that would apply
(or potentially apply) to a product.

a. Most useful for product developers. A bit harder to use for
purchasing agents (at RFP time) since they would not necessarily know the
characteristics of all product offerings. (e.g. does it include a touch
screen or 'soft keys'?) But it can be by purchasing agents at bid
evaluation time once characteristics of the products proposed are known.

5) That functional performance criteria were still needed for the same
reasons








Details





The Headings from the blended approach organization


The headings were chosen to allow the provisions to be organized in a
fashion that did not cause provisions to fall into multiple categories, yet
to make it easier to find individual provisions.

NOTE that the product characteristics (below) can also be used to both
filter and group the provisions in different ways to meet different needs.
Between the Blended Format (which allows linear non-redundant presentation)
and the sorting characteristics below (which allow regrouping and filtering)
we have tried to address most of the needs. Additional tags can always be
used for reordering but we tried to keep them to a minimum.



-----------------------------------------




1. Provide at least one mode which allows full use of product directly or
with users' AT.


w/o vision


w/o hearing


w/ low vision w/o using audio


w/o color perception


w/o speech


w/o fine motor or simultaneous action or much reach


w/ limited cognitive, language, and learning skills


2. Don't block use


3. Facilitate ability to use default mode


General


Time limits


Comprehension


Interaction


User preference settings


Input Devices


General


Keyboard and keypads


Pointing devices


Touchscreens


Output Devices


General


Audio output


Media


Content


4. Provide an alternate mode


General


Alternate Output


Media alternate presentation


Captions


Audio description (of video)


5. Suppport use of assistive technology


Software support of AT


Provide AT with acccess to all information


Allow AT to control all function


Provide Windows services important to installed AT


Support connections to external alternate presenters/controllers



TTY {or Equivalent Format for IP if on IP}


6. Documentation, help, and support services


Documentation and help


Support services


7. Support tools


Process guidance


Authoring tools


Install programs and startup




-----------------------------------------------




The product sorting/filtering characteristics




The user would check all characteristics that apply. Provisions that would
apply to their product could then be highlighted, sorted to the top, left
showing, etc.



Has Physical Controls or connectors (incl. latches, slots,etc?)

Has Touchscreen or Softkeys or Touch Sensitive Buttons

Uses Mouse/pointer Input

Uses Keyboard (Physical - touch typeable)

Has Printed text, labels, etc on the product itself

Has Visual Display with Text

Has Visual Display with Graphics

Uses Color (on keys, labels, displays, indicators, anywhere etc.)

Sound Output (Other than speech)

Speech Out (inlcuding conversation)

Speaker held to ear or product projects large magnetic field

Speech Transmission over PSTN (analog phone)

Speech Transmission over IP (Digital)

Speech In (Control or conversation))

Has Biometric Identification Feature

Has time Synchronized Media

Has Time limits of any type (timeout, double-clicks, keyrepeat)

Has User Documentation (Any type - electronic or print)

Has Customer Support / Training

Has OS that supports installed AT and user can install

No OS that supports installed AT or OS/Hardware Locked

Passes information/data through

Has electronic forms (Web & other Electronic)

Involves Web Content or Applications

Product Allows User Preferences

All Products








Concluding comments.




All of the above are works in progress. But they should server their
primary goal which was to see if an approach like this could work. The
final number, form and wording of the provisions would of course cause
changes.


Gregg

------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848

DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b

<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University