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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Jun 01 2007 6:00 PM

I think you would need to add "interface" to your definition. Power
connectors would be included otherwise.




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randy Marsden
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:20 PM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language

Very well stated.

Jim and Gregg's suggestion to replace the word "connector" with
"connection", may cover this, as long as we are clear what "connection"
means. Here's my stab at it:

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

Also, we should be clear that the connections we're 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:

"Standard Connection means an interconnection through which human
interaction is made possible".

-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