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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sat, May 26 2007 9:00 PM

Hi Randy,

We added the 'OR AT' to the functional performance criterion for physical at
our first or second general meeting. So that is already there.

But 'useable without fine motor control' I don't think covers people without
any motor control.


So "or AT" is covered but not people with no motor control or reach. (I
don't think).




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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Randy Marsden
> Sent: Saturday, May 26, 2007 10:02 AM
> To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] Functional PerformanceCriteria
> -MissingProvision.
>
> 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