Thread Subject: Re: "closed software"

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: Fri, Feb 23 2007 11:45 AM

Hi Jonathan,

It is a bit confusing but what I was saying is

- built-in means that a capability is in the product when sold.
- compatible with AT means that it will work with AT that a user (person or
agency) adds later

With a kiosk, which is closed, the user can't add or install AT. That is
the definition of closed essentially. In order to be accessible the access
would need to be built in. A company could use many different methods to
do this. One of them might be to include a screen reader (that was easy to
use for most people who were blind who would encounter the kiosk) as part of
the software in the kiosk.

The kiosk would thus be both closed and accessible because of the built-in
capabilities.

Another kiosk that was AT compatible but did not include any screen reading
capability and was closed would not pass since there would be no way for
anyone with a disability (of this type) to use it.


This example is of course just covering one dimension of access. There are
other disabilities and even other issues for blindness (like tactilely
discernable controls for the screen reading feature).


Does this help?


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Jonathan Avila
> Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 8:42 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>
> <quote> Hmmm. Not sure I understand your point.
> If a kiosk has jaws built in - then it has built in access -
> which is what closed products must have. </quote>
>
> I'm confused by your response. Let me reiterate my comments:
> When referring to closed products you said "then the software
> access standards (If you meant the AT compatibility
> standards) have no effect or meaning."
>
> What I'm trying to articulate is that the current hardware
> standards are insufficient for this type of kiosk that uses a
> standard OS such as XP. For example, the current standard
> 1194.25(h) only requires that a range of color/contrast
> settings be available if the color settings can be changed.
> Since the program is running on XP the colors can be changed
> in the OS and thus I think the kiosk application should honor
> those settings.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

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