Thread Subject: Re: Touch-based controls language
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: Diane Golden
Date: Tue, Aug 21 2007 9:00 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Debbie Cook: "Re: Touch-based controls language"
- Previous message in thread: Robert_Nerhood@Dell.com: "Re: Touch-based controls language"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
When we (state level procurement staff) reviewed these options the unanimous
preference was for Version 1. That is a measurable standard that we can
reasonably judge and rate based on vendor provided information in a bid
review. Alternatives to address innovation (version 2 and the subsequent
options) can always be addressed using equivalent facilitation provisions,
typically judged using the existing functional performance criteria which
could be expanded if necessary.
Diane Golden, NASCIO
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 9:41 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-hardware] Touch-based controls language
The following language was suggested a couple of weeks ago. Just getting it
back into the discussion loop. Please comment.
The two versions of the requirement that appear in the July 6 draft are:
Version 1 - If a product utilizes touch screens or touch-operated controls,
an input method must be provided that complies with Mechanical Controls
Version 2 - If a product utilizes touch screens or touch-operated controls,
an equivalent means of input/interaction/control shall be provided.
Here is an attempt to reword the requirement to address the concerns that I
heard at the TEITAC plenary this morning.
If a product utilizes touch screens or touch-operated controls
(a) A functionally equivalent, alternate means of operation that does
not require vision must be provided.
(b) A functionally equivalent, alternate means of operation that does
not require fine motor control must be provided.
(c) If the product is freestanding, non-portable, and intended to be
used in one location, the alternate means in (a) and (b) must not require
Related Sufficient Techniques:
If a product utilizes touch screens or touch-operated controls, and is
freestanding, non-portable, and intended to be used in one location, a
sufficient technique to satisfy the requirement would be to provide
functionally equivalent Mechanical Controls (see). To protect the privacy
of the user, speech cannot be required . However, if Mechanical Controls
are provided, redundant voice controls may be provided as well.
To satisfy the requirement for other products that utilize touch screens or
touch-operated controls, sufficient techniques include providing
functionally equivalent (1) Mechanical Controls, or (2) voice controls with
Here are some additional thoughts:
1. In order to leave room for innovation, the provision begins to look
something like the Functional Performance Criteria. In order to compensate
for this, I tried to consider the human abilities that may be required for
operation of a touch screen or touch control (vision and fine motor
control), and to address those specific interface requirements.
2. This language does not address the needs of those who have multiple
Federal Reserve Board
- Next message in Thread: Debbie Cook: "Re: Touch-based controls language"
- Previous message in Thread: Robert_Nerhood@Dell.com: "Re: Touch-based controls language"