Thread Subject: Re: Functional PerformanceCriteria -MissingProvision.

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: Randy Marsden
Date: Sat, May 26 2007 9:05 AM

The functional performance criteria (FPC) already says this, requiring at
least one mode of operation that does not require fine motor control. One
could argue someone who is paralyzed from the neck down does not have fine
motor control, has limited reach, and can't perform simultaneous actions.
The only thing missing is the part about "or support for assistive
technology", as in the other sections. So we are expanding the scope and
making it easier for IT, not harder (unless you don't include people without
the use of their hands in this category).

If that's the case, then consider this. The FPC says technology must be
usable, with or without AT, by people who are blind, have low vision, can't
hear, have difficulty hearing, and can't speak - but somehow we're going to
exclude people with mobility impairments? It's like they're second-class
technology citizens. The demographic of these folks is at least as large as
blindness, and includes people with spinal cord injury, cerebral palsy,
multiple sclerosis, ALS, muscular dystrophy, stroke, brain injury, locked-in
syndrome, and many more. They got overlooked last time around, and it's my
personal mission to make sure that doesn't happen again this time.

With respect to Closed systems only being able to use voice recognition as
an alternative to physical controls: even that probably won't work since
many people with physical impairments also can't speak. A long-term
solution to this problem is to define a protocol that Closed systems can
support using a standard interconnection (port or wireless) that allows AT
in, and causes it to no longer be closed. The long-term solution CAN'T be
'"let's keep excluding these type of people with disabilities".

-Randy

------------------------------------------------
Randy Marsden, P.Eng.
President & CEO, Madentec Limited
ATIA Global Policy Chair

780-450-8926 ext. 223
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =


> From: "Debbie Cook" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Reply-To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 19:56:54 -0700
> To: "TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] Functional PerformanceCriteria
> -MissingProvision.
>
> Well is that one mode speech? If that's the only mode that doesn't rely on
> AT and doesn't rely on being able to activate any kind of physical control,
> then I don't know what other option one would have. I'm reluctant to say
> that all products must be controled by voice activation. With respect to
> closed products, we may be in the same arena with requiring all products to
> support Braille--we can't. With products that are not closed, we need to
> support as many AT solutions as are possible within the constraints of the
> product. But for functional performance, I don't think we can go this far.
> Not sure how to resolve.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-general]Functional
> PerformanceCriteria -MissingProvision.
> Hmmmm
>
> Interesting. So what does this look like as a Functional Performance
> Criterion?
>
> Do we change it to
>
> One mode .... people with limited or no reach, limited or no strength,
> etc.??
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> Debbie Cook
>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 6:02 PM
>> To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] Functional PerformanceCriteria
>> -MissingProvision.
>>
>> And in all these examples we're talking about using AT. In
>> the case of closed products, there might not be any way to
>> connect that AT or have that AT communicate directly with the
>> product. So aren't we saying that in at least one mode the
>> product is controlled by other than physical controls?
>> This is important in terms of the functional criteria since
>> that's all you can meet in some cases.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: "'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:48 PM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] Functional PerformanceCriteria
>> -MissingProvision.
>>
>>
>> I think I get where you are going. But it think the word
>> "touch" is throwing people off.
>>
>> Are you saying that it isn't just about people with limited
>> reach and strength, it is also about people with no reach and
>> no strength, who cannot touch the product? Those who cannot
>> use their arms. And those who cannot use any appendage
>> including a head or mouthstick. That must control things
>> using eye gaze, head movement, sip/puff, brainwaves etc - and
>> must therefore have a way of connecting their own interfaces
>> to the product rather than operating the products buttons?
>>
>> Is this it?
>> Part of it?
>> What is the rest of it?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randy
>>> Marsden
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 9:06 AM
>>> To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] Functional Performance Criteria
>>> -MissingProvision.
>>>
>>> No - it's also about touch, in addition to dexterity and
>> coordination.
>>> There are most definitely people who can't use touch, even with a
>>> prosthesis. Think Christopher Reeve. The Functional Performance
>>> Criteria currently exclude people who can't touch. I agree with
>>> Jessica's post.
>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>> Randy Marsden, P.Eng.
>>> President & CEO, Madentec Limited
>>> ATIA Global Policy Chair
>>>
>>> 780-450-8926 ext. 223
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>
>>>
>>>> From: "Debbie Cook" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> Reply-To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> Date: Thu, 24 May 2007 06:44:27 -0700
>>>> To: "TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee"
>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] Functional Performance Criteria -
>>>> MissingProvision.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it's touch. Isn't it more about dexterity and
>>> coordination?
>>>> Even with a prosthesis one could touch something. But one
>>> may not have
>>>> the dexterity to press keys etc. Some of this is covered in
>>> hardware already.
>>>> Since this would undoubtedly only apply to hardware, I
>> think it may
>>>> make more sense to revisit what is in hardware.
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Jessica M. Brodey" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 6:37 AM
>>>> Subject: [teitac-general] Functional Performance Criteria -
>>>> MissingProvision.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Provision F does not adequately address physical
>>> accessibility issues.
>>>> We would suggest either adding a new provision (or possibly
>>> expanding
>>>> F to address these issues). The provision should focus on
>>> individuals
>>>> who are unable to access the computer through traditional input
>>>> devices such as keyboards and mice. Possible language
>>> (following the
>>>> existing format of the other criteria) would be: "At least
>>> one mode
>>>> shall be provided that allows full use of product without
>>> using touch, directly or with users' AT."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jessica Brodey
>>>>
>>>> JMB Policy Consulting
>>>>
>>>> (301) 770-1127 (voice)
>>>>
>>>> (301) 770-1129 (fax)
>>>>
>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> --------
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

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