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: Fri, Aug 24 2007 8:40 AM

Well I'm concerned that this will sound costic, so I need to say up front
that it is absolutely a serious recommendation with no attempt at sarcasm.
If speech output is truly an equivalent to silent operation of devices, then
it should be the primary means of input and the touch screen controls should
not be permitted at all. I think my point is, that while it's the only means
of operating devices for some people, and while it's completely adequate in
some settings for any person, there are often times that an individual would
be distracting to others in the environment if they had to speak in a normal
and clear voice to a device. And there are many devices where the devices
don't respond well. My cell phone, for example, has great speech in
capability but I rarely use it because in noisy environments or in places
where there are other people, it poses a problem. So, I'm waiting to hear
what, other than speech, is going to be used in place of the touchscreen
controls.
----- Original Message -----
From: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] [teitac-closed] Touch-based controls language


Hi, Debbie. Thanks for responding to my proposed language regarding
alternatives to touch-based controls. I would like to respond to a couple
of your points.

* "If an individual uses a touch screen control, the most equivalent
alternative is a mechanical control (another form of touch control.)"

I agree, unless the user has a motion disability with limited dexterity.
In that case, voice control or some other interface might offer the most
comparable functionality. I think that requiring functionally equivalent
mechanical controls is too limiting to innovation.

* "Use of speech reduces privacy which is essential to the operation of
many devices."

I agree that use of speech may reduce privacy, depending on the
environment in which the device is used. In the case of an information
kiosk, the user cannot choose the environment, which is why user speech
must not be required. For mobile products, it seems that there can be
limited expectation of privacy if the user is in a public environment.

I'm not sure I agree that privacy is essential to the operation of many
devices, but I agree that privacy is highly desirable for the operation of
many devices. I am not a procurement official, but I think that if
privacy is essential to the operation of a device, the procurement
official would include private operation as a functional requirement of
the product.

Any other thoughts, or suggestions for wording of the provision? Thanks!

Peter Manyin
Accessibility Specialist
Federal Reserve Board



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

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