Thread Subject: Re: "closed software"

From: David Poehlman
Date: Sat, Feb 24 2007 9:10 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: David Poehlman: "Re: "closed software""
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

why not do #1 with #222 as the default and a hot key to get at the
controlls so that they don't clutter the interface?

On Feb 23, 2007, at 6:11 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

You capture a key problem very well here.



There is a dilemma that comes up in closed systems like kiosks. Do you



1) expose the operating system utilities which are more flexible
but
are beyond most people to figure out if they have not always been
using them
(especially old people who may not use computers at all - but have to
use
this kiosk to buy a ticket or vote or whatever).

Or do you

2) build access in, using large high contrast fonts and a perhaps a
simple utility. This is much easier to use (or is just easier to see so
many don't have to use anything) but does not provide the flexibility
of the
built in OS utilities.



For public places one usually goes with #2 because so many people
can't use
#1. but in a workstation situation #2 may be completely inadequate.
When they have public workstations you really have a problem.




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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Smith,
Jamie
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 4:29 PM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"

The issue of color that I still want to talk to Gregg, somewhat
relates to
the closed system. I work for Florida Blind Services. Our department
and/or
state training folks often "out source" with "closed" training
systems. The
companies more times than not equate accessibility for the blind with
speech, generally with JAWS. The closed system did not allow the
operating
systems contracts and font size changes as it was closed (didn't know
that
what it was called). Their idea of "color adjustments" in no way
meet the
needs of folks that were using operating accessibility. The fonts were
often difficult to read, and the "large size" they picked for all was
either
to small for most or too large for the few staff that used magnifiers
set to
10-12 point. To me, it seems like it would make more sense to have
systems
that allow for users to use the software or operating system that
enhance
access than attempt to make something that may not be useable to some.




_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = on behalf of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Fri 2/23/2007 1:43 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"

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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: David Poehlman: "Re: "closed software""