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: Jim Tobias
Date: Thu, May 31 2007 1:00 PM

I would say that Bluetooth pairing is much easier for people
with impaired vision or dexterity.


***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias




_____

From: Randy Marsden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:26 PM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee; 'TEITAC
Telecommunications Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language


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 don't 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 "Standard Ports" 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 Randy's 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, it's a different story for mobile phones,
PDA's, 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 "port". Some may say that's good enough
-all AT has to do is build a matching connector and communicate via USB.

Here's 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 doesn't. In many cases, we can't 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 ain't gonna happen),
or ask AT to support a gazillion different interfaces, I think we can just
add wireless to the "Standard Ports" (aka "standard interconnections")
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:

"Where provided, at least one of each type of expansion slots, ports,
connectors, and wireless connections shall comply with publicly available
industry standards."

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 "industry standard ports". 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