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: James Elekes
Date: Fri, Aug 24 2007 10:05 AM

Agreed.

-Jim


At 11:54 AM 8/24/2007, you wrote:
>I am not op[posed to adding additional requirements to number 1 in
>recognition of the fact that it doesn't accommodate everyone. But #2 does
>not either, becaue it does not describe what will be equivalent. It is not
>measurable.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "James Elekes" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>To: "TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
>< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Sent: Friday, August 24, 2007 8:29 AM
>Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] [teitac-closed] Touch-based controls language
>
>
>Deb and Peter,
>
>While I can see the justification in each presentation, I have to
>agree with Deb. I had the problem of "Voice" brought home this past
>week when travelling via Amtrak from NYC to D.C. The only seats
>available were in the "Quiet Car". I was expecting a call and, of
>course it came in somewhere between the two points. Rather than
>fumbling with the touch controls, I used Voice Input and, was
>immediately chastised by the Conductor and several around me. I was
>encouraged to step into the foyer between cars (Acccella travelling
>at 135 mph). Touch Controls were impracticle due to their
>design/position (and the instability of the foyer) but, Voice was
>equally inappropriate. What's the option?
>
>My apologies if this situation doesn't add to the discussion but, I
>believe it's a practical example of the frustration being experienced
>in real life by those of us who have visual impairments.
>
>-Jim
>
>James J. Elekes, Chairman
>Telecommunications, Electronic/Information Technologies Committee
>United States Access Board
>
>(O) 888.564.8430
>
>
>At 10:37 AM 8/24/2007, you wrote:
> >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