Thread Subject: Re: SubpartA-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: Diane Golden
Date: Sun, Mar 18 2007 5:45 PM

I'm thinking swiches and other similar alternative input devices use a software interface and that is what the web and software access standards are addressing via exposure and compatibility. Is that correct?

Diane


----- Original Message ----
From: Jessica M. Brodey < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 10:55:32 PM
Subject: RE: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.


Diane:

Thanks for doing that search. I think in most of the cases, the use of
"assistive technology" seems more related to "assistive technology device."
In the web and software sections, I think substituting assistive technology
device would be preferable to accessibility-related software. Some of the
information that needs to be exposed to assistive technology is for the use
of assistive technology devices such as switches, or eye trackers, etc.

Jessica Brodey

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = 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]
SubpartA-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