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: Randy Marsden
Date: Sun, Nov 11 2007 9:30 PM

Hi Gregg:

I got both your voice messages today. I was already on an airplane,
and not just got in. (I'm in DC already). Sorry I missed you.
Perhaps tomorrow before your travel?

-Randy

On Nov 10, 2007, at 2:42 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

> 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. 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:teitac-
> = 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:
> A functionally equivalent, alternate means of operation that uses
> Mechanical Controls and does not require vision.
> 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 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