Thread Subject: Re: Touch-based controls language

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: Debbie Cook
Date: Wed, Aug 22 2007 2:10 PM

I would like to speak in favor of Proposal 1. The primary issue is that
there is no equivalent means that anyone has identified for implementing
number2. If anindividual uses a touch screen control, themost equivalent
alternative is a mechanical control (anotherform oftouch control.) Use of
speech reduces privacy which is essential to the operation ofmany devicesw.
Use of add-on technologies such asAT or add-on IT is notequivalent because
they require the individual to have them. There is nothing that would
prohibit implementation of any of these alternatives under equivalent
facilitation if it can be shown that for thespecific product they are indeed
equivalent.
----- Original Message -----
From: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2007 7:41 AM
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 Section.
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 speech.

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 audio response.


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
disabilities.


Peter Manyin
Accessibility Specialist
Federal Reserve Board




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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