Thread Subject: Re: Touchscreen Accessibility

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: awoolley@cusa.canon.com
Date: Tue, Sep 25 2007 5:30 PM

RE:
Is the Chocolate the same technology as in Samsung's Armani phone?

The Chocolate vibration feature is used as a prompt. For example, when a
new number is dialed the user may be asked on the display if they'd like
to save the new number. If there is no response, the Chocolate may
vibrate to get the user's attention.

I don't think this feature is as sophisticated as we are implying from an
accessibility perspective. Perhaps the Samsung phone is more so.

Aubrey

Aubrey Woolley
Government Marketing Division
Canon USA, Inc.




Phill Jenkins < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
09/25/2007 07:02 PM
Please respond to
TEITAC Committee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To
TEITAC Committee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
cc

Subject
Re: [teitac-committee] Touchscreen Accessibility







Thanks Gregg for your quick answers and Allen for your input.

> - The old provisions required mechanical. This was not a
change.

You're right, 1194.23 (K) 1 through 4 talk about "Products which have
mechanically operated controls or keys".
I was looking at 1194.25 (J) 1 through 4 which talks about "any operable
control" by mistake.

The old definitions define it as:
Operable controls. A component of a product that requires physical
contact for normal operation. Operable controls include, but are not
limited to, mechanically operated controls, input and output trays, card
slots, keyboards, or keypads.


and the Sept14 draft definition improves it as:

Operable Controls. Any physical control that affects the operation of the
product. Operable controls include, but are not limited to, mechanically
operated controls, input and output trays, card slots, keyboards, keypads,
keys, or buttons, including touch-screens.


> - The vibration is very fuzzy. Hard to find where controls are
and aren?t. Speech would be needed to provide ID of button, menu items
etc.

O.K. So, in your opinion is it fuzzy and/or hard *enough* to fail being
'tactilely discernible without activating the controls or keys"? In my
opinion, if there is some tactile discernment, then it meets the provision
because we haven't defined or noted anything about 'enough'. For example,
the little bumps on the F and J keys are very subtle. But when I hear
from Allen Hoffman:
". . . has played with a touch-screen vibrating item, the Chocolate phone
does this,
that while vibrations are helpful, there will be a lot of refinement to
make that technique really a solution. . . "

I get the sense that we may need a note explaining that the vibrations are
not enough, or that more research is needed in this area to determine
sufficient techniques, and in the mean time alternative are still needed -
or something like that. Is the Chocolate the same technology as in
Samsung's Armani phone?

> - Fine motor control is part ?pinching, grasping and twisting
of wrist? and part ?tremor and choretic movement and coordination?.
> So those are part of ?fine motor? but not all of it.

So, in your opinion do we need a note and / or further definition of 'fine
motor control'? I thought with sticky keys, bounce keys, mouse smoother,
etc. that what's in 2.1-C 1 through 4 would suffice and we don't need
more.

Regards,
Phill Jenkins
IBM Research - Human Ability & Accessibility Center
http://www.ibm.com/able

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