Thread Subject: Re: Agenda for today's AV subcom meeting

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: terry.weaver@gsa.gov
Date: Fri, Sep 21 2007 7:30 AM

Is this an example of a provision that is more a 255 issue? If we are
trying to urge manufacturers to redesign remotes, this might be more
appropriate.





"Larry Goldberg" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
09/21/2007 09:03 AM
Please respond to
"TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To
"TEITAC AV list" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
cc

Subject
Re: [teitac-video] Agenda for today's AV subcom meeting






Having an access solution that requires external/specialized AT makes
sense
in some PC-based products, the notion that a deaf or blind person would
need
to bring AT to bear on using the menus on their TV is a major, untenable
burden. The complete opposite of any universal design principle.

I understand that dictating product design can be anathema to innovation
and
the ability of companies to meet marketplace demands, but because the
marketplace hasn't been able to incentivize the usability of such things
as
menus that can be accessed by deaf or blind people, the products have
drifted toward implementations that approach sheer unusability. A
hands-off
approach has led to such situations as a cable set-top box that must be
powered off to access a secret, hidden firmware menu which gives access to
caption controls. Once adjusted, the cable box menu must be turned off,
the
box powered back on, and the resulting captions then viewed for
acceptability. If the captions don't look right, the user has to start the
process all over again.

Meets the letter of the law? Yes.
Usable? Hardly.
Indicates a need to address a "design" issue? Probably.

... Larry ...


Sean Hayes wrote:

> What you say is true, but the point is whether 508 is the place to
address it.
> If the product does not receive power it is not usable either, that
doesn't
> mean the availability or position of power sockets is in the remit of
508.
>
> If the setup facility is not accessible, that's another; matter but if
it is,
> or can be made so by AT then I'm not sure we can require more than that.
>
> Sean Hayes
> Incubation Lab
> Accessibility Business Unit
> Microsoft
>
> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen Peltz
Strauss
> Sent: 21 September 2007 12:18
> To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] Agenda for today's AV subcom meeting
>
> First, a product is not accessible unless it is usable by people with
> disabilities.
>
> Second, if a person is unable to locate the controls to activate the
> accessibility features, how could it truly be called accessible? The
demand
> for easy access to a captioning control is not coming on a whim. It is
the
> product of years of not being able to figure out how to turn on captions
on
> various television devices. The problem is at its worst when trying to
use
> a television out of the home (presumably, if you own a television set,
> somehow you have figured out how to turn on the captions, though my
> understanding from consumers is that with new digital TVs even this can
be
> difficult or impossible, if there is no captioning button on the
remote).
> In the federal government context, there are going to be times when
> individuals in business or hospital (VA hospitals) need to turn on the
> captions. They will be unfamiliar with those television sets.
> Accessibility must include a way to enable them to turn on the captions
> without having an engineering degree.
>
> Karen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sean Hayes" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2007 6:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] Agenda for today's AV subcom meeting
>
>
>> We may wish for better usability in many aspects of products covered by
>> 508. However the scope of 508 is not usability, and unless a usability
>> issue has a specific impact on accessibility then it would seem to me
out
>> of scope.
>>
>> For TV and home entertainment, there are many after-market products
which
>> can replace a whole host of remote controls, I use such a system and
they
>> and significantly simplify use and setup. Such devices might even be
>> considered assistive technology I suppose.
>>
>> Sean Hayes
>> Incubation Lab
>> Accessibility Business Unit
>> Microsoft
>>
>> Office: +44 118 909 5867,
>> Mobile: +44 7875 091385
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Larry
Goldberg
>> Sent: 19 September 2007 19:28
>> To: TEITAC AV list
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-video] Agenda for today's AV subcom meeting
>>
>> The frustration is that "turning it on" sounds like a very
straightforward
>> proposition, but when that option is deeply buried in nested on-screen
>> menus
>> or requires powering off a device and selecting a hidden menu, it makes
>> one
>> wish for a button on the remote, or language that forces usability in
>> addition to accessibility.
>>
>> ... Larry ...
>>
>>
>> Dave Singer wrote:
>>
>>> At 12:56 -0400 11/09/07, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
>>>> I think this reads worse than we want it to.
>>>>
>>>> In simple terms, people who are deaf want a "cc" button on the remote
>>>> that turns on captioning for broadcast. Would this also turn on, or
>>>> select, the captioning if this were connected to a media player? Its
>>>> not quite as simple in this circumstance, so maybe we need to just
limit
>>>> this to:
>>>>
>>>> For systems which include caption decoding functionality and a remote
>>>> control, a captioning button must be available on the remote that
>>>> enables and disables captioning display from broadcast or other
external
>>>> inputs.
>>>
>>> Why must it be on the remote? Shouldn't the requirements say that if
>>> there is an adaptation available, it must be possible for those who
>>> need the adaptation to turn it on, or it must be on by default.
>>
>>
>> - Larry
>>
>>
>>
>>

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