Thread Subject: Re: Proposed language for user controls on videoprogramming products

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: Schomburg, Paul
Date: Thu, Oct 11 2007 8:40 AM

Karen: Although the example you provided applies to remote controls and
on-screen menus, the sentence "These must be comparable in prominence to
the controls needed to change volume and channels, where the ability to
control these features is otherwise provided" might be interpreted to
require buttons for caption control and secondary audio on the main TV
unit itself. I don't think this is a good result as it would exclude a
large number of commercial units which could be made accessible with a
special remote. Was this what you intended?

Thanks, Paul

Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114; Cell: (202) 550-2230

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen Peltz
Strauss
Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:29 AM
To: TEITAC Audio/Video Subcommittee; 'Dave Singer'; 'Al Sonnenstrahl';
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'Toby R. Silver'; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ;
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Cc: Rosaline Crawford; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-video] Proposed language for user controls on
videoprogramming products

Here is another attempt at proposed language for user controls on video
programming products. I have taken a little bit from Dave's, Sean's and
Gregg's proposals, and here is what I have come up with. By way of
explanation: First, this really should stay in the audio-video section
of the guidelines, not a general section where it is likely to be
overlooked. We are talking about very specific types of controls for
accessing television and television-like products and it would be better
if we dealt with this here. Second, this provision does not belong in
1.2-A because that section deals with activation by the agency - such as
when accessibility is built into a phone system and the agency does not
trigger the switch to turn on the access features built in (this was
discussed at length in the telecom subcommittee where this provision
originated). Third, I agree with Gregg that the examples may get lost,
but if we include some language about comparable prominence to volume
and channel controls, I think that will help. I know there were some
concerns about this, and that is why I added "where the ability to
control these features is otherwise provided." Finally, I tried to put
this whole requirement into plain English - "make the controls easy to
find and easy to use":

In order to comply with this subpart, the user controls needed to
configure and activate general and accessibility features on products
that receive or display analog or digital television must be easy to
find and easy to use by people with disabilities. These must be
comparable in prominence to the controls needed to change volume and
channels, where the ability to control these features is otherwise
provided.

For example:
1. For captioning: (a) A caption on/off on a TV remote comparable in
prominence to the volume control on that remote; (b) Caption controls on
the first menu that appear when on-screen menus are displayed
2. Audio equivalents to on-screen information and visual menu selections
3. A tactile button to turn on audio equivalents;
4. A user preferences dialog that is accessible and directly reachable
from a login screen.

Karen

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