Thread Subject: Re: Touchscreen Accessibility

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Sep 25 2007 9:45 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Phill Jenkins: "Re: Touchscreen Accessibility"
• Previous message in thread: awoolley@cusa.canon.com: "Re: Touchscreen Accessibility"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Hi Phill



* O.K. So, in your opinion is it fuzzy and/or hard *enough* to fail
being 'tactilely discernible without activating the controls or keys"?

Yes. very.



* 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.

This is orders of magnitude less that nibs. Best way to understand is to
give it a try sometime. Close your eyes and try to count the buttons on
screen and do a rough layout.



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.

Agree



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



Don't know.



* 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.

Probably good. Better yet would be something measurable but that is a two
edges sword. Leaves people out and makes it harder on industry. Hard to
sell on both sides.




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Phill Jenkins
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 6:03 PM
To: TEITAC Committee
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

• Next message in Thread: Phill Jenkins: "Re: Touchscreen Accessibility"
• Previous message in Thread: awoolley@cusa.canon.com: "Re: Touchscreen Accessibility"