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: Randy Marsden
Date: Fri, Aug 24 2007 9:15 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: James Elekes: "Re: Touch-based controls language"
- Previous message in thread: Debbie Cook: "Re: Touch-based controls language"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
I agree with Peter.
Version 1 takes care of access for people who are blind, but does not
help people with other types of physical disabilities. Version 2
does a better job of encompassing all types of disabilities.
Remember - besides speech recognition, keyboard and mouse
alternatives are commonly used (both software and hardware-based).
For example, as long a whatever is being controlled on the screen of
a touch-based device can also be actuated by a mouse, then head-
pointing devices can be used by people without the use of hands.
On Aug 23, 2007, at 3:57 PM, = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:
> 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?
> Peter Manyin
> Accessibility Specialist
> Federal Reserve Board