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: Fri, Jun 01 2007 12:30 PM

Very well stated.

Jim and Gregg¹s suggestion to replace the word ³connector² with
³connection², may cover this, as long as we are clear what ³connection²
means. Here¹s my stab at it:

³Connection means a mechanism whereby interoperability between two devices
is made possible, and includes the mechanical, electrical, and software
interconnection between the two devices²

Also, we should be clear that the connections we¹re talking about are those
meant for human interaction (not machine to machine). So, a connector for a
duplexer on a multifunction printer would definitely not apply. Something
like:

³Standard Connection means an interconnection through which human
interaction is made possible².

-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 desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 10:53:53 -0400
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language
>

>
> I believe this thread is massively problematic because it assumes a "teitac
> hardware" device is a general purpose computing platform. I don't believe
> that is necessarily the case.
>
> There are going to be cases where a hardware device needs to have a
> proprietary connector. For example, a large multifunction printer may have a
> connector for connection to a duplexing unit or to a mailbox/sorter or for
> some other purpose. Are you expecting this connector to be capable of
> providing anything useful from an assistive technology perspective?
>
> Even if the manufacturer used an industry standard interface, nothing may be
> exposed via that interface that would be usable for assistive technology. For
> example, a number of Lexmark printers have a USB port on the front so that a
> user can walk up and insert a USB memory device (aka USB key) and then print
> the documents contained therein. If someone were to have developed assistive
> technology that supported a USB interface, attaching it to this industry
> standard USB port would serve no purpose.
>
> Unless a hardware device has the ability to have special drivers loaded to
> take advantage of an industry standard connection (or any other connector for
> that matter), the connector is virtually guaranteed to be useless for the
> purposes of assistive technology or anything else except what the manufacturer
> intended.
>
>
> ***************************************************************************
> Don Wright = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = / = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Director of Standards
> Lexmark International Treasurer, IEEE Standards Association
> C14/082-3 Vice-Chair, INCITS Executive Board
> 740 New Circle Rd Past Chair, IEEE SA Standards Board
> Lexington, Ky 40550 Member, IEEE SA Board of Governors
> 859-825-4808 (phone) Member, IEEE CS SAB & W3C AC
> 603-963-8352 (fax) Director, IEEE-ISTO
> ***************************************************************************
>
>
>
>
> "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = 06/01/2007 10:34 AM
> Please respond to "TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
> To: "'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> cc:
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language
>
>
> I read Randy's input on this discussion as saying now that we have standard
> connectors and standard wireless connection, we don't need to accommodate
> non-standard connectors. I agree with this, and believe that the regs should
> push industry towards standard connectors.
>
> There are only 2 ways I can see permitting non-standard connectors:
> - requiring the product to include all the necessary AT functionality (making
> it a closed product)
> - requiring the company to provide, on demand, adapters between their
> non-standard connector and a standard connector used by AT
>
>
> ***
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> skype jimtobias
>
>
>
>
> From: Thomas Albin [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 10:08 AM
> To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language
>
> Hi Jim,
> Doesn't your suggested wording eliminate any allowance of non-standard
> connectors? How about something along the lines of:
>
> Where MULTIPLE input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or
> wireless, are provided, AT LEAST ONE OF such connection capabilities
> shall comply with publicly available industry standards."
>
> rather than
>
> Where input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or wireless, are
> provided, such connection capabilities
> shall comply with publicly available industry standards."
>
> Best regards,
> Tom Albin
> On Jun 1, 2007, at 5:31 AM, Jim Tobias wrote:
>
> Where input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or wireless, are
> provided, such connection capabilities
> shall comply with publicly available industry standards."
>

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