Thread Subject: Re: No-Touch Requirement

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Jul 05 2007 9:05 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

Hi Randy, Debbi et al,

Interesting discussion.

Some thoughts.

By definition you can't access a closed product via AT. If you can - it is
no longer closed. Now or in the future.

But that is just for closed products. If we do this right however we can
provide access to products by people without reach or touch. URC
(universal remote console) for example would allow users to use their AT to
access products without connecting or touching them. Wireless USB is
another approach. This would not be to "closed" products of course - but
they could be to products that are 'closed' today - but could allow AT
connection in the future and cease being closed.

So for Closed products - usable without reach or touch is not possible.

But not for 'open' products including products that were previously closed.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Randy Marsden
> Sent: Thursday, July 05, 2007 5:45 PM
> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee;
> TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] [teitac-closed] No-Touch Requirement
>
> It's a conundrum all right.
>
> Is it possible to include the requirement, knowing that it
> will not be possible at a technical level for the immediate
> future on closed systems to meet the requirement, but leaving
> the door open for innovation that one-day will make it possible?
>
> Is there a precedent for that? (Provisions what are in 508,
> but which are not technically possible). When a vendor
> completes their VPAT for the closed system, they could just
> say "Not technically possible" in that column. We could
> provide ancillary comments and guidance to Federal
> Procurement agents indicating that there may be times when
> this provision cannot be technically honored.
>
> At least this way we will get our foot in the door and
> indicate our intent that ALL people with disabilities should
> be able to access that "closed"
> system. This will also put the pressure on industry (IT and
> AT alike) to start to address the issue of Closed Systems and
> find a way to make them more open for AT in the future (which
> I think is the most feasible way around the problem).
>
> It's a philosophical issue: do you wait until a requirement
> can be technically implemented before including it, or do you
> include it in order to encourage the development of technical
> solutions? I vote for the latter.
>
> -Randy
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Randy Marsden, P.Eng.
> President & CEO, Madentec Limited
> ATIA Global Policy Chair
>
> 780-450-8926 ext. 223
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>
> > From: "Debbie Cook" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Reply-To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 12:25:30 -0700
> > To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Subject: [teitac-closed] Items for Continued Discussion
> >
> > We have been reviewing the Functional Performance Criteria as
> > currently proposed to determine and resolve any implications for
> > Closed products. We have made proposals with respect to
> vision and hearing.
> >
> > We should discuss implications related to the following:
> > * Use without speech
> > * Use with limited reach, strength or manipulation
> > * Use with Cognitive, Language or Learning Limitations
> > * Use with no reach or touch.
> >
> > I believe most of these can stand alone without specific
> standards for
> > use without AT. However, as has been discussed in both the Hardware
> > and General groups, there is concern regarding access to Closed
> > product functions and use with no reach or touch. This
> concern relates
> > to the understanding that by definition Closed product functions do
> > not support use of some or all AT, and technology for the immediate
> > future best supports these users through AT. We do not want
> to exclude
> > any user groups from access to particular product categories. We
> > cannot require compatibility with AT if the product is
> closed in some
> > way. Further discussion is needed to resolve tihs
> specifically for Closed products.
> >
> >

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