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: Debbie Cook
Date: Wed, May 30 2007 11:35 AM

I don't have any problem with this accept as it relates to closed products.
There are some individuals with very significant physical disabilities as
you describe below, some with no hearing and vision (totally deaf-blind),
and some with very limited cognitive abilities who will not be accommodate3d
by a closed product. So, we can modify the functional criteria, but it
leaves a real gap for closed products if in fact the only known way to
accommodate some of these individuals is through assistive technology. We'll
obviously have more discussion of this at Closed in order to come to any
resolution we can. Because it is important to figure out.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Korn" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 7:41 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-general]Functional
PerformanceCriteria -MissingProvision.


Hi Debbie,

There are individuals with physical disabilities so severe they not only
have no control over nearly all muscle groups, but also their speech is
sufficiently impaired that most speech recognition systems are unable to
recognize their speech.

Today the only way we know to accommodate the accessibility needs of
such individuals is via AT. And today we have a very difficult time
reaching anything like "comparable access" when it comes to efficiency
and productivity for many, otherwise accessible, IT tasks. There are
some significant efficiency and productivity gains we are seeing with AT
use of a rich API for access (cf. the GNOME On-screen Keyboard with
single switch or dwell access).

Nonetheless, I think it makes sense to keep this language parallel to
the rest of our functional criteria - "at least one mode of operation
and information retrieval that... or support for assistive technology
use by people who..."

What we need to capture here isn't just the lack of fine motor control.
There is also a lack of gross motor control, and a lack of the ability
to speak.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> 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