Thread Subject: Re: Standard ports language
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: Thu, May 31 2007 10:05 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Standard ports language"
- Previous message in thread: Randy Marsden: "Re: Standard ports language"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Speaking on behalf of AT:
This has pretty-much become a non-issue on the computer side of things, with
the advent of USB. However, itÂ¹s a different story for mobile phones,
PDAÂ¹s, and SmartPhones. Most of those type of products have proprietary
connectors. However, within the pin configuration of those proprietary
connectors, there is usually a USB Â³portÂ². Some may say thatÂ¹s good enough
Âall AT has to do is build a matching connector and communicate via USB.
HereÂ¹s the problem with that: AT would then need to make custom adapters
for every mobile device we wanted to support. And the problem with THAT is
the dichotomy between the life cycles of AT products and IT products: most
IT product life cycles are 18 months or less, while most AT products are 48
months or more. Compounding the problem is the fact that AT development is
usually slower than IT due to fewer resources.
So, we (AT) customize for an IT device, just get started selling them, and
poof Â the IT product gets replaced. Sometimes the connector stays the
same, sometimes it doesnÂ¹t. In many cases, we canÂ¹t recoup the development
costs for the customized solution before it becomes obsolete (since we are
selling in much lower volumes than the IT folks).
There are some AT companies that have just chosen a specific product line to
support, and have told customers that they must buy that product (not the
best solution for the user, and perhaps not even possible in Federal
It would seem the best solution to this problem would be for Telecom, etc.
to standardize on a common port. But then, wait, when you think about it,
they already have: BlueTooth (and other future wireless standards). So
rather than ask Telecom to change their connectors (it ainÂ¹t gonna happen),
or ask AT to support a gazillion different interfaces, I think we can just
add wireless to the Â³Standard PortsÂ² (aka Â³standard interconnectionsÂ²)
definition and be good to go.
Randy Marsden, P.Eng.
President & CEO, Madentec Limited
ATIA Global Policy Chair
780-450-8926 ext. 223
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> From: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Reply-To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 09:10:18 -0500
> To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: [teitac-telecom] Standard ports language
> Telecom and Hardware subcommittee members,
> At the TEITAC meeting last week, the hardware subcommittee proposed the
> following language for application across all products:
> Â³Where provided, at least one of each type of expansion slots, ports,
> connectors, and wireless connections shall comply with publicly available
> industry standards.Â²
> Questions were raised by several members of the TEITAC committee regarding its
> application across all products especially Telecom. Based on those comments
> the following options regarding this language are proposed for discussion:
> 1 Â the language is fine since it allows it adds wireless as a means of
> support Â³industry standard portsÂ². For example the use of Bluetooth with
> phone headset. Thus, no changes or additional details are required and it
> should be applied across the entire product breadth.
> 2 Â There needs to be some additional language to address proprietary ports
> and how they can be made accessible.
> 3 Â The language should be limited to specific products, for example, it
> originally was a desktop and portables requirement and should only apply to
> those products.
> Please provide feedback and discussion on this topic so that the hardware
> subcommittee can develop a final recommendation.
> Rob Nerhood | Experience Design Group | Ergonomics Engineer
> Dell, Inc. | One Dell Way | Round Rock, Texas 78682 - 7000
> direct 512.723.2763
> This communication and all attachments are confidential and may be legally
> privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, (i) please do not read or
> disclose any content to others, (ii) please notify the sender by reply mail
> immediately, and (iii) please permanently delete this communication from your
> system. Failure to follow this process may be unlawful and subject to
> prosecution. Thank you for your cooperation.