Thread Subject: Working our way to common ground.

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: Thu, Jul 05 2007 10:15 AM

Hi Paul,



I agree with both your points:

1) that we need to stop thinking about "phone" as just phone

2) that we need to worry about the "how do I connect" issue





To address #1 we have been moving from "telecommunication" to "terminal(s)
(of all types) for real-time conversation" in our TEITAC language.

To address #2 we have a provision on the ability to connect.



If the 'connection' provision isn't strong enough - lets strengthen it.



But just because those of us with jobs all have our own personal phone and
wireless service, not everyone is wealthy enough to afford a phone and the
monthly bill. And we don't want to go back to the point where people who
are hard of hearing (and speak just fine) and those that are deaf need to go
buy their own special (and often more expensive) device and carry it about
with them everywhere.



Also, just because some of us know how to use a computer or could figure out
how to connect a foreign device to a network - there are many who are deaf
or hard of hearing (especially older folk) who can't (or can no longer)
figure out how to do that. And allowing any device to automatically
connect and use a network for free would not fly for security and economic
reasons.



I think our goal should be

1) to have people who are hard of hearing and who are deaf be able to
use the 'conversation terminals' (whatever type) that everyone else uses
*when it costs little or nothing to do so*.

The suggested provisions do not ask that displays or keyboards be changed
but simply that 'voice conversation devices' (whatever type) that *already
have a display and/or keyboard* allow the display - and the text entry
system if there is one - to be used for text conversation along side the
voice.

2) to allow those that have special devices to be able to connect them
- such that they don't pay any more to use their special device - than the
people who are using the phone that is already provided would pay.



The goal here should be that people who are hard of hearing or deaf should
have the same access to tele-conversation as everyone else. Now, not all
phones have displays or text entry. So sometimes a person who is deaf or
hard of hearing will need to bring or find a text capable phone. But so
many already do have displays that it shouldn't be hard to find a phone with
one. And people could call a special number and use the keyboard on the
phone for text entry in a pinch (if there was not text entry ability on the
phone already).



Remember, that for a very large number of hard of hearing and late deafened
adults (and some who are deaf from birth) speech is possible. And when
talking to hearing folk or talking through a relay, it is much easier and
faster for them to just talk - and look at the display for the text coming
back. Especially older people can find this much much easier than learning
to text or trying to text with arthritic fingers.




Bottom line.




1) where it is easy to do - (like when 'tele-conversation devices' already
have a display and/or text entry) - people who are deaf should have the
option of using the phones they encounter just like everyone else. (Why
are the phones there if everyone uses their own phone? There are fewer pay
phones - but they are still there and phones are still all over offices
right next to computers. Why? The same things should apply to people with
disabilities when the cost to do so is negligible.)



2) make sure the people have the option to connect their own device if the
one that is provided for everyone else will not work well for them.






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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Paul E. Jones
Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 8:02 AM
To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Working our way to common ground.

Karen,



To your point on 9-1-1 access: the "phone" does not access 9-1-1, as least
not directly. The phone will generally communicate with either a
"softswitch" or PBX device that will then facilitate communication between
the end terminal and 9-1-1. So, what I am trying (perhaps unsuccessfully)
is that the "phone" should not be defined as the "phone" as we know it
today. What I really want is to enable the end user to use any variety of
terminal equipment using a variety of access technologies. By putting all
requirements on the "phone", I get the uneasy feeling that the end product
for deaf people will be a device like TTY devices today, with no more
capability. My desire is to have more than that, at least more options.



In any case, I recognize that there must be a "point of attachment" to the
network. The phone is positioned as that attachment point. If the system
architecture were more conducive to multimedia devices, perhaps I would feel
better, but phones as they are defined today are not. So, we either need a
different architecture or we live with the existing architectures and we
find a way to encourage use of a variety of terminals.



Gunnar mentioned in a separate e-mail that he would like to provide a total
conversation system that deaf users could use, for example. I would support
that endeavor, but then how does it connect to the network? Can I take his
total conversation system on my UMPC and go to your house or office and use
it? Not likely. In order to enable that, we need changes in how users are
able to connect to the network.



It's a fairly complex problem, but one I would like to consider. Even if we
cannot solve the problem right away, I would hate to see language in the law
that demands that I interface my total conversation device to a "phone".



Paul

----- Original Message -----

From: Karen <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > Peltz Strauss

To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 9:32 AM

Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Working our way to common ground.



Clarification. . .in my prior message, I did not make clear that in the
quote below, it had been Paul who had written "Everything I see through
these questions suggests that a deaf person has to find and somehow
interface with a "phone" in order to communicate. My question is why? Why
look for a phone? Why not enable the deaf user to communicate independently
of the phone?"



Also, my response does not even get at the importance of the phone for basic
emergency access, which, for the foreseeable future will still remain
"voice-based." Next generation 9-1-1 systems are still probably 5-10 years
out, given the funding problems faced by PSAPs.



In response to Jim's postings, remember that we are not only drafting for
Section 508 anymore. We are also talking about Section 255, which now
requires access by interconnected VoIP providers.



Karen

----- Original Message -----

From: Karen <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > Peltz Strauss

To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 8:14 AM

Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Working our way to common ground.



Paul,



The concern that I have with your message is that our society is still very
"phone-based" for day-to-day communications. Sure, those of us in our
workcircles may have blackberries, laptops, etc., but think about what the
average person uses to contact their plumbers, doctors, teachers, etc. They
use the phone as we have always known it. Think about your average day, and
what you use your phone for (as compared to e-mail or IM). Who do you call
because you know they are going to pick up by phone, rather than respond by
e-mail?



Think about the situation where you are in an airport and your flight has
been cancelled. You need to call the airline to make a new reservation; you
need to call the car service to change your pick up time; you need to call
relatives that might not be on e-mail or IM (e.g., senior citizens) to let
them know about your new plans. I know that as a hearing person, I have
relied on the phone for all of the above situations. Sure, I might be able
to change my flight on line, but again, what if I am an average person (not
a Beltway person) who does not carry around the Internet with me. I was in
Chicago last year, and my flight was cancelled at the last minute. An
entire plane-load of people needed to suddenly change their flights. What
did everyone do? They either ran over to the airline PHONE or got on their
cellPHONES to scramble to get the next flights out.



It seems to me that this is not an either/or situation. We hearing people
have the option of contacting people by phone or via pagers, IM, e-mail,
etc. There are times when the latter will work just fine, but there are as
many times that having access to a phone is just as important, and could be
critical. You wrote: "Everything I see through these questions suggests
that a deaf person has to find and somehow interface with a "phone" in order
to communicate. My question is why? Why look for a phone? Why not enable
the deaf user to communicate independently of the phone?" I say, until we
can say this for hearing people, we should not say this for people who
cannot hear.



Karen

----- Original Message -----

From: Paul E. Jones <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 8:49 AM

Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Working our way to common ground.



Gregg,



I did not see anything in the questions under "Group 1", but I also did not
see anything that encouraged use of other access methods.



Let me speak personally, as you can imagine I have given this a lot of
thought. Daily, the issue becomes more of a concern for me. If I were
entirely without hearing, I would not want to use a voice phone. It would
be useless to me. What I want is a means to communicate. Everything I see
through these questions suggests that a deaf person has to find and somehow
interface with a "phone" in order to communicate. My question is why? Why
look for a phone? Why not enable the deaf user to communicate independently
of the phone?



I would personally want to be able to use my mobile device (including Pocket
PC or Ultra Mobile PC). If I do not have such a device with me, I would
appreciate have some means of communicating, but I would not want to be tied
to a very horrible interface provided by a telephone. Phones simply are not
the best means of enabling text communication and I would personally like to
have another kind of device available to me.



So, while I'm not opposed to having text on the phone for the case where
nothing else is available, the danger I believe exists in focusing s much on
the phone is that a "phone" will be the only device I will generally have
available to me. Those I have worked with over the recent years have told
me repeatedly that they want something much better than the TTY devices they
have today and text on a phone does not satisfy those desires.



So, we should place some emphasis elsewhere, not just the phone. How can I
interconnect my text device with the network?



Paul

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