Thread Subject: Re: Standard ports language

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: Thu, May 31 2007 12:35 PM

I agree pairing between two Bluetooth devices is a pain. But once you do
it, subsequent connections become much easier. Also, I know there are other
wireless standards in the works that may one-day replace Bluetooth, and
that will be much easier and faster. So, I don¹t think we should get too
specific about what TYPE of wireless connection should be used ­ only that
using a standard wireless interconnection should be considered satisfactory
in respect to the ³Standard Ports² definition.

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

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

>
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Reply-To: "TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 12:51:57 -0500
> To: "'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware)
> subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] [teitac-telecom] Standard ports language
>

> The problem with Bluetooth is that one can't just come up and plug in.
> Pairing is a lot of work and can be complicated if you are facing a bank of 12
> devices all broadcasting an ID.
>
>
>
> But Randy¹s comments are good. I would suggest that we dedicate a call to
> this topic and invite people from different industries to the call so we are
> sure to have diverse input.
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randy Marsden
>> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:23 AM
>> To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee; TEITAC desktop/portable
>> (hardware) subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Standard ports language
>>
>> 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, it¹s a different story for mobile phones, PDA¹s,
>> 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 ³port². Some may say that¹s good enough ­all AT has to do
>> is build a matching connector and communicate via USB.
>>
>> Here¹s 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 ­ the IT product gets replaced. Sometimes the connector stays the same,
>> sometimes it doesn¹t. In many cases, we can¹t 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
>> procurement).
>>
>> 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 ain¹t gonna happen), or ask
>> AT to support a gazillion different interfaces, I think we can just add
>> wireless to the ³Standard Ports² (aka ³standard interconnections²) definition
>> and be good to go.
>>
>> -Randy
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> 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:
>>>
>>> ³Where provided, at least one of each type of expansion slots, ports,
>>> connectors, and wireless connections shall comply with publicly available
>>> industry standards.²
>>>
>>> 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 ­ the language is fine since it allows it adds wireless as a means of
>>> support ³industry standard ports². 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 ­ There needs to be some additional language to address proprietary ports
>>> and how they can be made accessible.
>>>
>>> 3 ­ 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.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>

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