Thread Subject: Re: Everyone Please Look RE 2.1-A

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Sun, Mar 30 2008 5:00 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Everyone Please Look RE 2.1-A"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Notes 1,2, and 4 look like exceptions; without them, the provision would
apply to unique keys, regulatory labels, and secondary functions. Note 3 is
the calculation function, which speaks to testability.

(BTW, this situation is yet another argument for building an information
tool rather than a document; an information tool would have forced us to
distinguish between normative and non-normative text.)


***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias




_____

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2008 11:30 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: [teitac-committee] Everyone Please Look RE 2.1-A



There appears to be an editorial copy error on this provision.

The Notes under this provision were intended to be Normative Bullets -
rather than Notes (Informative).



If I am the culprit and did this when I turned this in I apologize.



I believe the intent of all who worked on this that these be normative - and
they are worded such that then can't be notes.



If no one objects on the list I would ask the chairs to check with others
who worked on this (Tom Albin, Rob Nerhood, Sean ) and make this change
(Change these to bullets).



This I believe is just people not noticing that they were notes not bullets.





IF ANYONE OBJECTS TO THIS - please post a note to the list. This language
was worked out with industry, and I believe consensus of industry was based
on the assumption that the notes were not informative.



*if no one objects* it would be good for this to be fixed in our report





Thanks



Gregg







PROPOSED CHANGE -- JUST CHANGE NOTE 1, 2, 3, 4 INTO BULLETS




2.1-A: Reflectance Contrast for Legends and Passive Displays


If passively illuminated displays, primary legends, or instructions printed
on the device are the only means of conveying information, then the
reflectance contrast must be at least 3:1.

Note 1: If other means of conveying the information in the label or
instructions exists (e.g.,uniquely tactilely discernible though shape), then
the reflectance contrast requirement does not apply.

Note 2: This requirement excludes product information labels, such as
the regulatory labels, where information can be found in other sources
associated with the product either in hard- or soft copy format.

Note 3: Reflectance contrast (RC) is calculated in the following manner
RC = (RH +0.02)/(RL+0.02) where RH = Reflectance of high (bright) element;
RL = Reflectance of low (dark) element, where the reflectance is always a
value between 0 and 1.

Note 4: The secondary functions are not required to meet this
provision. For example, on keyboards the alphanumeric labels are the primary
legends and should meet this convention; however, the secondary functions
(such as the blue numbers on an embedded numpad on a notebook) are not
required to meet this provision as they are infrequently used and in the
case of the numpad may add to visual clutter and additional confusion
relative to the keyboard interaction.













Gregg

------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848

DSS Player at <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b> http://tinyurl.com/dho6b

If Attachment is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/

<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Everyone Please Look RE 2.1-A"