Thread Subject: Re: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products
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: Jim Tobias
Date: Wed, Nov 08 2006 5:40 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Diane Golden: "Re: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products"
- Previous message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
I'm concerned about a definition that includes "policy restrictions". It
to open up too much potential abuse. After all, we're insisting that the
be open and accessible for policy reasons as well. Why does *our* policy
take a back seat?
Security, content protections, and others do not usually conflict with a
interface. They're all about limiting the display of certain content, not
select it. The one compelling example you gave, Gregg, was of the content
display was licensed to one company and the audio to another. But that's
not a technical
barrier, it's a business practice barrier.
I'm surprised to hear you defending the definition of a kiosk as a closed
product. If a networked
kiosk could not install accessibility features on demand, based on user
actions, a stored
profile, an ID card, or whatever method, how is it really closed? What has
Trace's EZ Access
development and NCITS V2 work been about? Is this stuff ready for prime
time now, or in 2 years, or not?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 4:35 PM
> To: 'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
> Definition of Closed that was presented at Plenary
> Any product where the user is prevented from installing or
> attaching adaptive assistive technology due to physical,
> electrical or policy restrictions.
> - this can be specific to the application rather than the
> hardware. That is, a desktop computer that is purchased with
> library card catalog software (where the desktop computer
> will be locked down) would be closed and could only be
> evaluated with AT if the AT was to be installed in the closed
> products as purchased. Similarly a PC in a Kiosk would be
> closed. A PC
> on a user's desktop where the user can install any software
> they need would not be closed.
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
- Next message in Thread: Diane Golden: "Re: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products"
- Previous message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products"