Thread Subject: Re: touchscreens

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Thu, Jul 19 2007 11:15 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: touchscreens"
• Previous message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: touchscreens"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

OK, I agree with the capacitive issue.

But why can't people who are blind use a gesture touchscreen with the
provisos I'm describing?

***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 11:31 AM
> To: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] touchscreens
>
> Jim Wrote:
>
> > I think that the only people who can't use static or dynamic
> > touchscreens also could not use mechanical controls and would need
> > speech recognition or an AT solution like scanning or
> puff-and-sip switches.
>
> I think you forgot all the prosthetics, headstick and other
> users. They
> could use the touch screen but capacitive doesn't work - and
> the group didn't want to outlaw capacitive.
>
> So there is a big bunch that would need to use the mechanical
> controls - but would not use AT or speech etc.
>
> Plus of course all the people who are blind.
>
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim
> > Tobias
> > Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2007 9:22 AM
> > To: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] touchscreens
> >
> > Thanks for your comments, Gregg. I'm going to respond
> separately to
> > the non-touchscreen gesture interfaces.
> >
> > I want to begin by saying that my goal here is to see
> whether a single
> > touchscreen input device can meet the needs of all users with
> > disabilities at least as well as mechanical controls. To repeat, a
> > static touchscreen may be accessible to people with limited
> dexterity
> > if the targets are large enough and far enough apart. A dynamic,
> > gesture-based touchscreen may meet the needs of users with
> vision loss
> > if the gestures can be received anywhere on the active
> surface (which
> > must itself be tactilely discernible -- no fair having touchscreens
> > without borders). It *might* be possible to have 2 gesture
> reception
> > areas simultaneously (top/bottom or
> > left/right) if the gestures are well designed.
> >
> > So I'm talking about a touchscreen device that can run
> either static
> > or dynamic input software at the user's choice.
> >
> > Gregg wrote:
> >
> > > First lets look at what we have - and then some new ideas
> your post
> > > brings up
> > >
> > > Currently the language says - "if touchscreen is used then all
> > > functionality can be done through tactilely discernable controls."
> > >
> > > This would mean that people who can't use touch screens (static or
> > > dynamic) could achieve the same functions another way.
> >
> > I think that the only people who can't use static or dynamic
> > touchscreens also could not use mechanical controls and would need
> > speech recognition or an AT solution like scanning or puff-and-sip
> > switches.
> >
> >
> > > 1 - are the gestures like shortcuts? You can use them to
> do things
> > > quickly
> > > but there are other ways as well? -- this would be
> > > non-gesture access
> > > for all gesture input.
> > >
> > > 2 - are gestures the ONLY way to do some things? If so then
> > > some gestures
> > > require fine motor and some require simultaneous actions.
> >
> > I'm assuming that the touchscreen is the *only* input device.
> > But the issue of "simultaneous action" is important --
> what does it
> > mean in this context? It's not as obvious as "CTRL-ALT-DEL".
> >
> > I think that the bottom line is, can a blind user use a
> well-designed
> > touchscreen gesture interface? If we say "yes", we should
> reconsider
> > the touchscreen provisions.
> >
> >

• Next message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: touchscreens"
• Previous message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: touchscreens"