Thread Subject: Re: Tomorrow's conf call

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: Sean Hayes
Date: Wed, Oct 10 2007 2:00 PM

Here is the text I was working on, I've attached four examples, if anyone thinks we need more then please suggest them


I suggest a modification of the existing provision 1.2 A to allow for the requirement that the means to set up a feature be accessible to the person that needs it, as follows;

1.2-A - Accessibility Configuration
In complying with this subpart, each agency must activate accessibility features and configure products so that they are accessible to and usable by people with disabilities. The means to activate the accessibility features and configure products must be accessible, discoverable and usable by those desiring the feature.

For example:
1. A caption on/off on a TV remote comparable in prominence to the volume control on that remote;
2. A gain wheel or slider on a telephone receiver handset;
3. A tactile button to turn on audio equivalents;
4. A user preferences dialog that is accessible and directly reachable from a login screen.


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: 10 October 2007 16:30
To: Dave Singer; TEITAC AV list; Al Sonnenstrahl; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; Toby R. Silver; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-video] Tomorrow's conf call

Dave's suggestion regarding a more generic, but strong, requirement for the
accessibility and usability of access controls bears serious consideration.
Let's do so at today's conference call.

... Larry ...


Dave Singer wrote:

> At 15:31 -0400 9/10/07, Larry Goldberg wrote:
>>
>> We will discuss today's Plenary meeting/conference call, suggested changes
>> to the enclosed draft, and hopefully come to a conclusion regarding the
>> "caption button"/"top-level menu" proposal.
>
> As worded, I really don't think I can -- or we should -- agree to
> these, unless they are restricted to 'classical analog television'.
> They are both making into mandates a question of the design of the
> system.
>
> The furthest we should go in this direction is a recommendation. We
> simply do not know how to design these products, and inserting a
> design mandate may well have a counter-productive effect:
> manufacturers who were willing to meet the spirit of the regulations,
> and provide accessible equipment, may well not wish to meet the
> letter of such a design mandate, and consequently (since they would
> no longer be able to claim compliance) do nothing.
>
> I am also wondering why the people needing captions need to have this
> explicit access method, but those (for example) needing audio
> description of video are left without even a guideline as to how it
> should be enabled?
>
> Finally, what happens to option (2) when the menus on a system are
> enabled some other way than pressing a menu button on a remote?
>
> So, trying again, I'd like to *broaden* the scope of the *mandate*
> while leaving product design only recommended:
>
> * * * * *
>
> For all accessibility options, including but not limited to Captions,
> and Audio Description of Video [or whatever the term we settled on
> is], the enabling and disabling of that accessibility option must
> also be readily accessible to those desiring it, meaning that the
> control must both be easy to find, and easily used by someone needing
> it.
>
> For captions, recommended approaches include:
> 1. A caption on/off button on the TV remote control;
> 2. Caption control(s) on the first menu that appears when on-screen
> menus are displayed;


- Larry

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