Thread Subject: Re: Additional issues with closed,self-contained 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: Jim Tobias
Date: Mon, Nov 13 2006 11:45 AM

I'm still unsure why we allow products to be closed "by policy". I don't
think it's necessary or acceptable any longer. Technologically, *our*
concerns have to do with the user interface: how information is retrieved or
displayed; *their* concerns are either confirming whether the user is
authorized to retrieve certain information, or protecting the ICT from
unwelcome interference. I think we can address their concerns without
obliterating ours.

Let's keep in mind that 508 is intended to *drive the market*, not adapt to
other policy concerns automatically.

***********
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
skype jimtobias
www.inclusive.com


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Diane Golden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 1:17 PM
> To: 'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
> While I don't have an issue with this defintion from a
> theoretical perspective -- it is not likely practical as a
> 508 definition of closed, self-contained products so long as
> there is a robust set of technical access standards to which
> such products must conform. Specifically, if all products
> that meet the closed, self-contained definition need to
> conform to the technical standands for closed, self-contained
> products and those standards require built-in access features
> comparable to something like the voting system standards
> (speech output, large visual display output, alternative
> input options, etc.) then public use computers (closed by
> policy) would need to have a whole bunch of AT built into the
> system or be loaded on so that each computer would meet the standards.
>
> Diane
>
> Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
> Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 3:35 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
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>

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