Thread Subject: Re: interesting iPod article

From: Debbie Cook
Date: Mon, Apr 23 2007 12:15 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: interesting iPod article"
• Previous message in thread: Jim Tobias: "interesting iPod article"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

I believe they can close them by policy if desired but in that case the
burden falls entirely on them for accessibility. Usually any third part hack
unless fully endorsed byt the originaldeveloper voidsthe warranty.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Cc: "'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-websoftware] interesting iPod article


Hi Peter,

Thanks for your note. I'm not sure I completely buy your analogy; perhaps
it depends
on what is actually involved in installing the alternate interface and then
returning
the device to its original state. For example, if installing Linux and
Rockbox is
"easy", and returning the iPod to Apple's Pixo OS and the original interface
can be
accomplished by a simple reset command, that's quite different from a
difficult and
irreversible change.

How would you want to classify this product if someone wrote a screen reader
for Pixo,
no longer requiring any replacement of the OS? I assume you would agree
that that is
the same as a third party screen reader for a desktop OS. Would you require
that Apple
permit (or even facilitate!) the installation of such third party software?
What does
it say about Pixo if (and I'm clearly not an expert) it does not allow third
party
software?

Moreover, even such a difficult and irreversible change would not alter the
fact that
the *hardware* product would have to be described as "open", compared to a
typical
calculator, for which such a change would be technically infeasible.

I have 2 concerns here:

1. That we not abuse the concept of an OS. If one company makes the
hardware, the OS,
and the application software, and constrains all changes to the latter two
such that the
company itself is the only party legally permitted to alter them, is that an
OS? Maybe
this can be overcome by defining an OS.

2. That we remember to distinguish between products that are closed due to
technical infeasibility and products that are closed by policy. Companies
may be free
to close their products by policy, but such a policy may be prejudicial to
accessibility,
and our recommendations should be able to address that.


***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Korn [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 12:03 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Cc: 'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee';
> 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-websoftware] interesting
> iPod article
>
> Hi Jim,
>
> Interesting links. We discussed some of these issues a while
> back, I think at an in-person meeting. Replacing the iPod OS
> with Linux to install something like Rockbox (which among
> other things provides a talking user interface for reading
> song titles, etc. - see
> http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/ipod-hack1.htm and look
> for "Audible Menus") is essentially the same as buying a
> Windows PC, wiping its hard drive, and installing a UNIX
> environment that talks. It arguably makes the hardware
> accessible (at least to someone who is blind in these
> examples), but certainly not the OS - as the OS is no longer present.
>
> This is in contrast to most of what we have been talking
> about in open/closed systems - the ability to add something
> like a screen reader to make the existing "system" accessible
> (which is to say, the hardware & OS/platform).
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
> > Please forgive the cross-posting.
> >
> > Here is an article that describes iPod "openness" and hackability:
> > http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/ipod5.htm
> >
> > My takeaways are:
> >
> > 1. Any ICT product that is popular or interesting enough is
> going to
> > be hacked.
> > 2. A hack may be useful without being usable or supported
> in any way.
> > We should be careful not to focus only on technical feasibility of
> > "aftermarket accessibility".
> > 3. Companies may pursue closedness for marketing reasons,
> because it
> > gives them greater control over the product ecosystem. We
> should be
> > careful to distinguish between "policy" and "feasibility"
> closedness.
> >
> > Sidelight: look at the Tavo Gloves with conductive material in the
> > thumb and index finger, for use with iPods and other touch
> sensitive
> > controls:
> > http://www.tavoproducts.com/TavoGloves.html
> >
> > ***
> > Jim Tobias
> > Inclusive Technologies
> > +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> > +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> > skype jimtobias
> >
> >

• Next message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: interesting iPod article"
• Previous message in Thread: Jim Tobias: "interesting iPod article"