Thread Subject: Re: Users AT Definition

From: Randy Marsden
Date: Sat, Jun 16 2007 1:00 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: None
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

There are definitely hardware interoperability problems that standards could
help solve ­ in addition to software. For example, although the USB
specification is broad, it doesn¹t accommodate AT switch interfaces; they
must pretend to be something else (keyboard, joystick etc) in order to use
the USB bus. That leads to incompatibilities and limited functionality. We
actually have been pursuing, as a separate endeavor, a project that would
add ³switch interface² to the list of supported device types under the USB
HID (human interface device) specification.

Another example: closed systems are not currently compatible with AT,
because there is no place for AT to plug in. A new hardware
interoperability standard (like the URC ­ universal remote console) would
allow those closed systems to expose their functions and be controlled
externally by AT. A similar argument could be made for our BIOS
accessibility problems.

So, on a technical level, it is still about BOTH software and hardware.

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

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

>
> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Reply-To: "TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 14:03:22 -0400
> To: "'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Cc: "'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] [teitac-general] Users AT Definition
>

> Does such a standard have to be explicitly about AT? I mean, USB is a
> standard that works for alternate input devices, even though it was not
> established with AT in mind. And in the "computer" arena, it's both a
> hardware and a software standard, because the computer (plus PDA, phone, etc.
> with a USB connector or adapter) expects user input from there in a certain
> protocol.
>
> For hardware devices with a proprietary connector, either the manufacturer
> offers an adapter to an industry standard connector or a third-party will,
> soon enough. (The issue there is cost: must the agency pay for the adapter or
> not?) The third option is that a competing product with no proprietary
> connector will win the 508 battle. If there is no competing product (really?)
> then there is potentially an insoluble hardware compatibility problem. Can
> anyone come up with an example of that?
>
> But on a technical level, I think the problem may be really about software
> interoperability only.
>
> ***
> 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: Saturday, June 16, 2007 1:41 PM
>> To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] Users AT Definition
>>
>> To clarify, when I say ³technical standard², I mean engineering-level
>> standards; specifications for data protocols, programming interfaces, byte
>> order, connector pin-outs, voltage levels, and so on. In other words, the
>> standards that you would hand to the engineers and say ³design to this².
>>
>> -Randy
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> Randy Marsden, P.Eng.
>> President & CEO, Madentec Limited
>> ATIA Global Policy Chair
>>
>> 780-450-8926 ext. 223
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>
>>>
>>> From: "Tom Brett" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Reply-To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2007 11:10:10 -0400
>>> To: "'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] Users AT Definition
>>>
>>
>>> The Section 508 coordinator¹s in the Government look at products and ask
>>> were the made/coded to the Section 508 standards (are they conformant).
>>> There are some coordinators who will actually look at the coding and perform
>>> evaluations without the use of any AT. This type of evaluation determines
>>> if the vendor has inserted code that force the product to work with only 1
>>> type of AT. When it has been determined that the product does conform they
>>> can state that the product meets the Section 508 Standards. The next level
>>> of testing is done with AT. Many cases the AT needs to be tweaked to get it
>>> to work with the product.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If the product conforms with the Section 508 standards, which are considered
>>> to be technical, and the AT does not work with the product a conclusion that
>>> can be drawn is that there is something wrong with the AT. I agree that
>>> there are no AT-IT interoperability standards but AT follows documented
>>> accessibility features provided by the platform.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom Brett
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randy Marsden
>>> Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2007 10:52 AM
>>> To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] Users AT Definition
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Peter:
>>>
>>> You wrote:
>>>
>>> ³... forced to do some amount of AT testing²
>>>
>>> ³ ... safely blame the AT²
>>>
>>> ³ ... conjure up a workaround²
>>>
>>> I think you may be overlooking the option of actually working together with
>>> AT vendors to ensure compatibility.
>>>
>>> As far as your proposed definition goes, it pre-supposes a standard exists ­
>>> which it doesn¹t. If you say ³code to the standards² - what standards do
>>> you mean? Currently, there are no accepted AT-IT interoperability standards
>>> ­ only 508, which is not a technical standard, and can¹t be ³coded to².
>>>
>>> -Randy
>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>> Randy Marsden, P.Eng.
>>> President & CEO, Madentec Limited
>>> ATIA Global Policy Chair
>>>
>>> 780-450-8926 ext. 223
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Peter Wallack < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Reply-To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2007 13:36:07 -0700
>>> To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] Users AT Definition
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd propose the following wording to replace 'Users AT':
>>>>
>>>> AT that is itself coded to be inter-operable with products coded to these
>>>> standards.
>>>>
>>>> As for 'coding to the standards' vs. actual AT testing, that is indeed the
>>>> $1 million issue. Of course we want to simply code to a standard, just as
>>>> we do for any API. But the Functional Performance criteria require us to
>>>> supply a mode that actually works, so we are forced to do some amount of AT
>>>> testing. But of course we cannot test every possible AT. And if it doesn't
>>>> work, we then must make a judgment call: can we safely blame the AT (and be
>>>> prepared to explain it over and over and over), or should we conjure up a
>>>> workaround. The same issues occur when we test and find problems with the
>>>> OS and browser, but its a bit different because they are much rarer, and
>>>> the interfaces tend to be very well defined 'industry standard' APIs.
>>>> Peter Wallack
>>>> Accessibility Program Director
>>>> Oracle Corporation
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tom Brett wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [teitac-general] Users AT Definition
>>>> The use of term such as reasonable, current and common in the standards
>>>> seem to be appropriate. I am concerned that the conversation tended to
>>>> talk about using 1 type of AT to test applications. Testing with AT is a
>>>> good final step in validating a product but the developer needs to be able
>>>> to say that they have followed the standards. I am aware of products that
>>>> work with Jaws but will not work with other screen readers or speech to
>>>> text technology. The vendor developed Jaws scripts to allow the product to
>>>> work with the product instead of following the Section 508 standards and
>>>> then says the product meets the Section 508 standards because it works with
>>>> Jaws.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In addition, the AT vendors have a certain amount of responsibility in this
>>>> also. These vendors need to develop AT that will use commonly available
>>>> features in the operating system and programming language. For example, if
>>>> AT does not read a properly coded alternative value of an image (alt=) the
>>>> problem is with the AT not the EIT. The EIT has been written to the
>>>> standard. There is nothing more that the developer can do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There are cases when the AT just does not work. About 3 years ago the
>>>> makers of a popular screen reading software made a mistake and removed the
>>>> support for JAVA in their product. The screen reader application did not
>>>> work with Java applications. The problem was not with the software
>>>> application because, presumably, it was written to the Section 508
>>>> standards.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If applications and systems follow the technical standards but the AT does
>>>> not work the problem is with the AT not the product. It may be necessary to
>>>> tweak the AT to make it more compatible with the network architecture and
>>>> or the product. Using any type of AT, screen reader, head mouse, blow
>>>> tube, speech to text, etc. to test a product to determine if it conforms to
>>>> the Section 508 standards is not good practice. This is particularly true
>>>> of products that are available to retrieve public information by members of
>>>> the public. The Government cannot say to a member of the public that the AT
>>>> they are using was not used in the testing of the product so you will need
>>>> to change.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tom Brett
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randy Marsden
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:04 PM
>>>> To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
>>>> Cc: Jessica M. Brodey; David Dikter
>>>> Subject: [teitac-general] Users AT Definition
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi General Folks:
>>>>
>>>> I apologize neither Jessica nor myself were able to attend yesterday¹s
>>>> General Subcommittee meeting to represent ATIA. I have read the transcript
>>>> and see it would have been nice to have had one of us there for the
>>>> discussion about defining what ³Users¹ AT² means.
>>>>
>>>> Here are the points I would have made, had I been on the call:
>>>>
>>>> 1. I hear what Phil (and others) are saying about wanting to be able
>>>> to design to a defined interface, and then testing with select AT to make
>>>> sure it works. Then, if it doesn¹t work with other AT, the responsibility
>>>> should be on that other AT as IT must surely have done their job by writing
>>>> to the spec and conducting limited successful testing. (I hope I have
>>>> paraphrased his comments correctly ­ if not, please let me know).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> MY RESPONSE: unfortunately, no such interoperability specification exists
>>>> today. It would truly be nice if one did; life would be easier for both IT
>>>> and AT, and almost certainly better for the end-user. But it doesn¹t exist
>>>> yet, so I don¹t see how we can make it part of what we¹re doing now.
>>>> Secondly, even if such a standard did exist, I would be very hesitant to
>>>> say all IT has to do is meet it and they¹re good to go. In practice,
>>>> there is almost always ³tweaking² that is required for true compatibility ­
>>>> even when interoperability standards and API¹s exist. (This is true with
>>>> any standard ­ for example, we have found a wide range of different current
>>>> capabilities on USB ports of different computers, notwithstanding a
>>>> well-defined specification).
>>>>
>>>> If the IT company tests with an AT product and finds it to work, and then
>>>> tests with a second AT product which doesn¹t, it doesn¹t necessarily mean
>>>> the second AT product has done something wrong. Using my example, perhaps
>>>> the second AT product requires a higher current (but still within spec)
>>>> than the first AT product, which the IT product is failing to supply. Or
>>>> perhaps the second AT product really does have a problem. It could be due
>>>> to any one of a number of things ­ all of which would likely be much easier
>>>> to fix with collaboration between the IT and AT companies.
>>>>
>>>> For many years, AT operated pretty much in a ³collaboration vacuum² with IT
>>>> (with notable exceptions). One of the primary benefits of 508 is that it
>>>> encourages AT and IT collaboration (like what we¹re doing right now). As
>>>> ATIA, we are leery of anything that may take away that benefit (such as
>>>> saying all IT has to do is meet a yet-to-be-defined interoperability
>>>> specification, and they¹re done).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As far as the definition goes, I still think we have to keep it vague, and
>>>> then provide ancillary notes to help provide direction. We talked about
>>>> using words like ³reasonable², ³readily available², ³current², and
>>>> ³common².
>>>>
>>>> -Randy
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>> Randy Marsden, P.Eng.
>>>> President & CEO, Madentec Limited
>>>> ATIA Global Policy Chair
>>>>
>>>> 780-450-8926 ext. 223
>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: None