Thread Subject: Re: Touch-basedcontrols language

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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sat, Nov 10 2007 2:45 PM

Hi Randy,



The language was changed to Version 2 for several reasons.



What was important was the Mechanical Controls requirements - not that the
control be mechanical. Part of this was due to the fact that there were
many arguments about what made an interface mechanical. Touch screens
themselves are sometimes mechanical. So it was the requirements that were
important - and by focusing on the requirement rather than the technology it
would create less ambiguity and more flexibility for industry while
providing for the needs of consumers.





You will note that the FINE MOTOR language is in version 2 as well.
Many/most interfaces for people with fine motor control are mechanical. So
there shouldn't be a conflict.



Version 2 (proposal from plenary)
If a product uses touch screens or touch-operated controls, it must provide
a functionally equivalent alternative means of operation that meets the
requirements for Mechanical Controls
<http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26#2.1-D_-_Mechanical_Controls> . This
alternative must not require either vision or fine motor control.

Note: A product may also provide control via user speech in addition to the
above methods.










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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randy Marsden
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2007 6:44 PM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
Subject: [teitac-hardware] teitac-hardware] [teitac-closed]
Touch-basedcontrols language

Hi Everyone:





I know we missed the deadline for getting info into the sandbox, but I
wanted to try to get everyone on the same page regarding Touch Controls
prior to next week's meetings.



The following is proposed text that we brought to the last plenary, after a
fair amount of vetting on the list serve (and recognition goes to Peter
Manyin for drafting this):



Version 1
If a product utilizes touch screens or touch-operated controls then the
product must provide, without requiring user-speech:

1. A functionally equivalent, alternate means of operation that uses
<http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26#2.1-D_-_Mechanical_Controls>
Mechanical Controls and does not require vision.
2. A functionally equivalent, alternate means of operation that does
not require fine motor control.

Note: This provision should not discourage the provision of control via user
speech in addition to the above methods.



Then, during the plenary when it was being discussed, a Version 2 was
entered on the Wiki as follows:



Version 2 (proposal from plenary)
If a product uses touch screens or touch-operated controls, it must provide
a functionally equivalent alternative means of operation that meets the
requirements for
<http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26#2.1-D_-_Mechanical_Controls>
Mechanical Controls. This alternative must not require either vision or fine
motor control.

Note: A product may also provide control via user speech in addition to the
above methods.

Rationale: This language addresses the issues associated with touch-based
controls (including biophysical, accidental activation and vision) by
requiring a redundant interaction method without assigning the control type.





As Rob and I reviewed this earlier this week, we realized that we don't
think that Version 2 was exactly what we intended and may have been
incomplete when entered into the Wiki during the last plenary. Specifically,
the first sentence of Version 2 requires Mechanical Controls, while the
second stipulates use not requiring fine motor control. Those two
requirements will likely conflict with one another (ie. you can't require
mechanical controls AND require that they don't require fine motor control).




I have checked my notes from the last plenary, but unfortunately didn't
document what the objections were to the Version 1 wording. So, we'd like to
take a step back to the original language in Version 1 (which we feel
addresses both disability segments - blindness and motor impairments - who
will have trouble with touch controls) and re-discuss it. If there are valid
concerns, we can amend it again and go from there. Sorry for the confusion -
this one fell through the cracks.



-Randy Marsden (HW co-chair)

ATIA

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