Thread Subject: Re: Subpart A-Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.

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, Mar 18 2007 4:40 PM

Thanks Diane,

This is very helpful. I think from this that we need to thing about a few
types of AT.

1) AT like hearing aids, mouthsticks and prosthetics, and wheelchairs. The
technologies have to be compatible with these

2) External AT that might connect to a product

3) AT that could be installed on a product


I don't think we can use "accessibility-related software" since middle ware
or an API would be that. Also any universal access feature.

But we may be able to be specific types instead of generic terms in some
places.



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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-subparta-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 4:26 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-Draft-Definitions-
> Assistivetechnology service.
>
> To help me understand why we need a defintion of AT or what we need it to
> distinguish between -- I did a search on where the term is used in the 508
> rules. Other than the defintion, AT is used in one of the exceptions --
> the
> standards don't require "the installation of specific accessibility-
> related
> software or the attachment of an assistive technology device . . . "
> Interesting use of the term "accessiblity-related software" which is not
> defined anywhere. AT is also used in the definition of Self-Contained,
> Closed Products - "user cannot easily attach or install assistive
> technology" and in the first standard under self-contained, closed in the
> same way. So all of these references are really focused on the "add-on"
> part of AT.
>
> AT is also used under Software and Web in a few standards -- "focus shall
> be
> programmatically exposed so that assistive technology can track",
> "identity,
> operation and state of (user interface) element shall be available to
> assistive technology", "information provided by script shall be identified
> with functional text that can be read by assistive technology", and
> electronic forms "shall allow people using assistive technology to access
> .
> . . " I'm not sure but it almost looks like the term "accessibility-
> related
> software" might be appropriate to substitute for AT in these instances.
> These standards don't seem to need the use of a broad term like AT.
>
> It might be helpful to see what revisions happen in the standards before
> spending a lot of time working on an AT definition that might not be all
> that needed to help understand the standards.
>
> Diane Golden
> NASCIO
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
> Vanderheiden
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 2:30 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart
> A-Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.
>
>
> I think Jim addressed it quite well.
>
> I think the solution is to define "AT as used in this standard"
>
> The definition of AT has to be different in different places. The
>
> Definition in the AT ACT is a 'use' definition as Jim described below.
>
> We need a "thing" definition (not necessarily even an object). The thing
> can be anything that would be considered a technology including hardware,
> software, and some services.
>
> I think something along the lines of Technology that is designed
> specifically for use by people with disabilities.
>
> (I would avoid "marketed as" because people may market mainstream at to a
> disability group - but it would still be mainstream technology - raising
> the
> same issue Jim did below.)
>
> Repurposing mainstream technology would be AT though (adding software to a
> computer to make it into a communication aid).
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > Jim Tobias
> > Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 10:19 AM
> > To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> > Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.
> >
> >
> >

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