Thread Subject: Standard ports language

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Robert_Nerhood@Dell.com
Date: Thu, May 31 2007 8:20 AM
Subject: Standard ports language

Telecom and Hardware subcommittee members,

At the TEITAC meeting last week, the hardware subcommittee proposed the
following language for application across all products:

"Where provided, at least one of each type of expansion slots, ports,
connectors, and wireless connections shall comply with publicly
available industry standards."

Questions were raised by several members of the TEITAC committee
regarding its application across all products especially Telecom. Based
on those comments the following options regarding this language are
proposed for discussion:

1 - the language is fine since it allows it adds wireless as a means of
support "industry standard ports". For example the use of Bluetooth
with phone headset. Thus, no changes or additional details are required
and it should be applied across the entire product breadth.

2 - There needs to be some additional language to address proprietary
ports and how they can be made accessible.

3 - The language should be limited to specific products, for example, it
originally was a desktop and portables requirement and should only apply
to those products.

Please provide feedback and discussion on this topic so that the
hardware subcommittee can develop a final recommendation.

Thanks,

Rob

Rob Nerhood | Experience Design Group | Ergonomics Engineer
Dell, Inc. | One Dell Way | Round Rock, Texas 78682 - 7000
direct 512.723.2763
This communication and all attachments are confidential and may be
legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, (i) please
do not read or disclose any content to others, (ii) please notify the
sender by reply mail immediately, and (iii) please permanently delete
this communication from your system. Failure to follow this process may
be unlawful and subject to prosecution. Thank you for your cooperation.

From: Randy Marsden
Date: Thu, May 31 2007 12:35 PM
Subject: Re: Standard ports language

I agree pairing between two Bluetooth devices is a pain. But once you do
it, subsequent connections become much easier. Also, I know there are other
wireless standards in the works that may one-day replace Bluetooth, and
that will be much easier and faster. So, I don¹t think we should get too
specific about what TYPE of wireless connection should be used ­ only that
using a standard wireless interconnection should be considered satisfactory
in respect to the ³Standard Ports² definition.

-Randy
------------------------------------------------
Randy Marsden, P.Eng.
President & CEO, Madentec Limited
ATIA Global Policy Chair

780-450-8926 ext. 223
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

>
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Reply-To: "TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 12:51:57 -0500
> To: "'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware)
> subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] [teitac-telecom] Standard ports language
>

> The problem with Bluetooth is that one can't just come up and plug in.
> Pairing is a lot of work and can be complicated if you are facing a bank of 12
> devices all broadcasting an ID.
>
>
>
> But Randy¹s comments are good. I would suggest that we dedicate a call to
> this topic and invite people from different industries to the call so we are
> sure to have diverse input.
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randy Marsden
>> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:23 AM
>> To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee; TEITAC desktop/portable
>> (hardware) subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Standard ports language
>>
>> Speaking on behalf of AT:
>>
>> This has pretty-much become a non-issue on the computer side of things, with
>> the advent of USB. However, it¹s a different story for mobile phones, PDA¹s,
>> and SmartPhones. Most of those type of products have proprietary connectors.
>> However, within the pin configuration of those proprietary connectors, there
>> is usually a USB ³port². Some may say that¹s good enough ­all AT has to do
>> is build a matching connector and communicate via USB.
>>
>> Here¹s the problem with that: AT would then need to make custom adapters for
>> every mobile device we wanted to support. And the problem with THAT is the
>> dichotomy between the life cycles of AT products and IT products: most IT
>> product life cycles are 18 months or less, while most AT products are 48
>> months or more. Compounding the problem is the fact that AT development is
>> usually slower than IT due to fewer resources.
>>
>> So, we (AT) customize for an IT device, just get started selling them, and
>> poof ­ the IT product gets replaced. Sometimes the connector stays the same,
>> sometimes it doesn¹t. In many cases, we can¹t recoup the development costs
>> for the customized solution before it becomes obsolete (since we are selling
>> in much lower volumes than the IT folks).
>>
>> There are some AT companies that have just chosen a specific product line to
>> support, and have told customers that they must buy that product (not the
>> best solution for the user, and perhaps not even possible in Federal
>> procurement).
>>
>> It would seem the best solution to this problem would be for Telecom, etc. to
>> standardize on a common port. But then, wait, when you think about it, they
>> already have: BlueTooth (and other future wireless standards). So rather
>> than ask Telecom to change their connectors (it ain¹t gonna happen), or ask
>> AT to support a gazillion different interfaces, I think we can just add
>> wireless to the ³Standard Ports² (aka ³standard interconnections²) definition
>> and be good to go.
>>
>> -Randy
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> Randy Marsden, P.Eng.
>> President & CEO, Madentec Limited
>> ATIA Global Policy Chair
>>
>> 780-450-8926 ext. 223
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>
>>
>> From: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Reply-To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 09:10:18 -0500
>> To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Subject: [teitac-telecom] Standard ports language
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Telecom and Hardware subcommittee members,
>>>
>>> At the TEITAC meeting last week, the hardware subcommittee proposed the
>>> following language for application across all products:
>>>
>>> ³Where provided, at least one of each type of expansion slots, ports,
>>> connectors, and wireless connections shall comply with publicly available
>>> industry standards.²
>>>
>>> Questions were raised by several members of the TEITAC committee regarding
>>> its application across all products especially Telecom. Based on those
>>> comments the following options regarding this language are proposed for
>>> discussion:
>>>
>>> 1 ­ the language is fine since it allows it adds wireless as a means of
>>> support ³industry standard ports². For example the use of Bluetooth with
>>> phone headset. Thus, no changes or additional details are required and it
>>> should be applied across the entire product breadth.
>>>
>>> 2 ­ There needs to be some additional language to address proprietary ports
>>> and how they can be made accessible.
>>>
>>> 3 ­ The language should be limited to specific products, for example, it
>>> originally was a desktop and portables requirement and should only apply to
>>> those products.
>>>
>>> Please provide feedback and discussion on this topic so that the hardware
>>> subcommittee can develop a final recommendation.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Rob
>>>
>>> Rob Nerhood | Experience Design Group | Ergonomics Engineer
>>> Dell, Inc. | One Dell Way | Round Rock, Texas 78682 - 7000
>>> direct 512.723.2763
>>>
>>> This communication and all attachments are confidential and may be legally
>>> privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, (i) please do not read
>>> or disclose any content to others, (ii) please notify the sender by reply
>>> mail immediately, and (iii) please permanently delete this communication
>>> from your system. Failure to follow this process may be unlawful and
>>> subject to prosecution. Thank you for your cooperation.
>>>
>>>
>>>

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Thu, May 31 2007 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: Standard ports language

I would say that Bluetooth pairing is much easier for people
with impaired vision or dexterity.


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




_____

From: Randy Marsden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 2:26 PM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee; 'TEITAC
Telecommunications Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language


I agree pairing between two Bluetooth devices is a pain. But once you do
it, subsequent connections become much easier. Also, I know there are other
wireless standards in the works that may one-day replace Bluetooth, and
that will be much easier and faster. So, I don't think we should get too
specific about what TYPE of wireless connection should be used - only that
using a standard wireless interconnection should be considered satisfactory
in respect to the "Standard Ports" definition.

-Randy
------------------------------------------------
Randy Marsden, P.Eng.
President & CEO, Madentec Limited
ATIA Global Policy Chair

780-450-8926 ext. 223
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =




From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Reply-To: "TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 12:51:57 -0500
To: "'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware)
subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] [teitac-telecom] Standard ports language






The problem with Bluetooth is that one can't just come up and plug in.
Pairing is a lot of work and can be complicated if you are facing a bank of
12 devices all broadcasting an ID.



But Randy's comments are good. I would suggest that we dedicate a call to
this topic and invite people from different industries to the call so we are
sure to have diverse input.




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










_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randy Marsden
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 10:23 AM
To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee; TEITAC desktop/portable
(hardware) subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Standard ports language

Speaking on behalf of AT:

This has pretty-much become a non-issue on the computer side of things, with
the advent of USB. However, it's a different story for mobile phones,
PDA's, and SmartPhones. Most of those type of products have proprietary
connectors. However, within the pin configuration of those proprietary
connectors, there is usually a USB "port". Some may say that's good enough
-all AT has to do is build a matching connector and communicate via USB.

Here's the problem with that: AT would then need to make custom adapters
for every mobile device we wanted to support. And the problem with THAT is
the dichotomy between the life cycles of AT products and IT products: most
IT product life cycles are 18 months or less, while most AT products are 48
months or more. Compounding the problem is the fact that AT development is
usually slower than IT due to fewer resources.

So, we (AT) customize for an IT device, just get started selling them, and
poof - the IT product gets replaced. Sometimes the connector stays the
same, sometimes it doesn't. In many cases, we can't recoup the development
costs for the customized solution before it becomes obsolete (since we are
selling in much lower volumes than the IT folks).

There are some AT companies that have just chosen a specific product line to
support, and have told customers that they must buy that product (not the
best solution for the user, and perhaps not even possible in Federal
procurement).

It would seem the best solution to this problem would be for Telecom, etc.
to standardize on a common port. But then, wait, when you think about it,
they already have: BlueTooth (and other future wireless standards). So
rather than ask Telecom to change their connectors (it ain't gonna happen),
or ask AT to support a gazillion different interfaces, I think we can just
add wireless to the "Standard Ports" (aka "standard interconnections")
definition and be good to go.

-Randy


------------------------------------------------
Randy Marsden, P.Eng.
President & CEO, Madentec Limited
ATIA Global Policy Chair

780-450-8926 ext. 223
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =


From: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Reply-To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Date: Thu, 31 May 2007 09:10:18 -0500
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: [teitac-telecom] Standard ports language






Telecom and Hardware subcommittee members,

At the TEITAC meeting last week, the hardware subcommittee proposed the
following language for application across all products:

"Where provided, at least one of each type of expansion slots, ports,
connectors, and wireless connections shall comply with publicly available
industry standards."

Questions were raised by several members of the TEITAC committee regarding
its application across all products especially Telecom. Based on those
comments the following options regarding this language are proposed for
discussion:

1 - the language is fine since it allows it adds wireless as a means of
support "industry standard ports". For example the use of Bluetooth with
phone headset. Thus, no changes or additional details are required and it
should be applied across the entire product breadth.

2 - There needs to be some additional language to address proprietary ports
and how they can be made accessible.

3 - The language should be limited to specific products, for example, it
originally was a desktop and portables requirement and should only apply to
those products.

Please provide feedback and discussion on this topic so that the hardware
subcommittee can develop a final recommendation.

Thanks,

Rob

Rob Nerhood | Experience Design Group | Ergonomics Engineer
Dell, Inc. | One Dell Way | Round Rock, Texas 78682 - 7000
direct 512.723.2763

This communication and all attachments are confidential and may be legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, (i) please do not read
or disclose any content to others, (ii) please notify the sender by reply
mail immediately, and (iii) please permanently delete this communication
from your system. Failure to follow this process may be unlawful and
subject to prosecution. Thank you for your cooperation.




_____

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Fri, Jun 01 2007 4:35 AM
Subject: Standard ports language

Why "alternate input or output connectors"? Aren't we talking about the
regular connectors? How about using the phrase "connection
capabilities, whether wired or wireless"?

So I propose:

"Where input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or wireless,
are provided, such connection capabilities
shall comply with publicly available industry standards."


***
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: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:49 AM
To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee';
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Standard ports language



If you read the wording carefully it says:

- if you have expansion slots - one shall comply with publicly available
industry standards

- if you have ports - one shall comply with publicly available industry
standards

- if you have connectors- one shall comply with publicly available industry
standards

- if you have a wireless connection - one shall comply with publicly
available industry standards



They are all different types so you can't use one for another.



I don't think we can use these words as is.



I do think we want to have something which is generic.



Perhaps: "Where alternate input or output connections are provided, such
interface connectivity shall be available through a connection that complies
with publicly available industry standards."



Or some such.






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


_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:10 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-telecom] Standard ports language



Telecom and Hardware subcommittee members,

At the TEITAC meeting last week, the hardware subcommittee proposed the
following language for application across all products:

"Where provided, at least one of each type of expansion slots, ports,
connectors, and wireless connections shall comply with publicly available
industry standards."

Questions were raised by several members of the TEITAC committee regarding
its application across all products especially Telecom. Based on those
comments the following options regarding this language are proposed for
discussion:

1 - the language is fine since it allows it adds wireless as a means of
support "industry standard ports". For example the use of Bluetooth with
phone headset. Thus, no changes or additional details are required and it
should be applied across the entire product breadth.

2 - There needs to be some additional language to address proprietary ports
and how they can be made accessible.

3 - The language should be limited to specific products, for example, it
originally was a desktop and portables requirement and should only apply to
those products.

Please provide feedback and discussion on this topic so that the hardware
subcommittee can develop a final recommendation.

Thanks,

Rob

Rob Nerhood | Experience Design Group | Ergonomics Engineer
Dell, Inc. | One Dell Way | Round Rock, Texas 78682 - 7000
direct 512.723.2763

This communication and all attachments are confidential and may be legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, (i) please do not read
or disclose any content to others, (ii) please notify the sender by reply
mail immediately, and (iii) please permanently delete this communication
from your system. Failure to follow this process may be unlawful and
subject to prosecution. Thank you for your cooperation.

From: Thomas Albin
Date: Fri, Jun 01 2007 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: Standard ports language

Hi Jim,
Doesn't your suggested wording eliminate any allowance of non-
standard connectors? How about something along the lines of:

Where MULTIPLE input or output connection capabilities, whether wired
or wireless, are provided, AT LEAST ONE OF such connection capabilities
shall comply with publicly available industry standards."

rather than

Where input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or
wireless, are provided, such connection capabilities
shall comply with publicly available industry standards."

Best regards,
Tom Albin
On Jun 1, 2007, at 5:31 AM, Jim Tobias wrote:

> Where input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or
> wireless, are provided, such connection capabilities
> shall comply with publicly available industry standards."

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Fri, Jun 01 2007 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: Standard ports language

I read Randy's input on this discussion as saying now that we have standard
connectors and standard wireless connection, we don't need to accommodate
non-standard connectors. I agree with this, and believe that the regs
should push industry towards standard connectors.

There are only 2 ways I can see permitting non-standard connectors:
- requiring the product to include all the necessary AT functionality
(making it a closed product)
- requiring the company to provide, on demand, adapters between their
non-standard connector and a standard connector used by AT


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




_____

From: Thomas Albin [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 10:08 AM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language


Hi Jim,
Doesn't your suggested wording eliminate any allowance of non-standard
connectors? How about something along the lines of:

Where MULTIPLE input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or
wireless, are provided, AT LEAST ONE OF such connection capabilities
shall comply with publicly available industry standards."


rather than


Where input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or wireless,
are provided, such connection capabilities
shall comply with publicly available industry standards."

Best regards,
Tom Albin

On Jun 1, 2007, at 5:31 AM, Jim Tobias wrote:



Where input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or wireless,
are provided, such connection capabilities
shall comply with publicly available industry standards."

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Jun 01 2007 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: Standard ports language

Where MULTIPLE input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or
wireless, are provided, AT LEAST ONE OF such connection capabilities

shall comply with publicly available industry standards."



The AT LEAST language is good if we add to the end "and all of the interface
functionality available on the non-standard connection would be available on
the standard connection" (otherwise I could have a non-standard connector
for all input and output except I would have a standard headphone jack).





The MULTIPLE connection is a problem since it means I can have one
non-standard connection and no way to use AT.



I think we need to limit this to connections dealing with interface
functions. Power connectors and disk drive connectors for example don't
need to be connected to AT.




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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Thomas Albin
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 9:08 AM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language

Hi Jim,

Doesn't your suggested wording eliminate any allowance of non-standard
connectors? How about something along the lines of:



Where MULTIPLE input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or
wireless, are provided, AT LEAST ONE OF such connection capabilities

shall comply with publicly available industry standards."



rather than



Where input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or wireless,
are provided, such connection capabilities

shall comply with publicly available industry standards."



Best regards,

Tom Albin

On Jun 1, 2007, at 5:31 AM, Jim Tobias wrote:





Where input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or wireless,
are provided, such connection capabilities

shall comply with publicly available industry standards."

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Jun 01 2007 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Standard ports language

Good points. The option of an adapter is good option.





Probably should limit this to workplace or personal devices. Standard
connectors should be used on public systems. And some may have to be
specified (one or a couple) directly. (so users don't have to carry a bunch
of 'standard adapters' around. (e.g. audio )




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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 9:34 AM
To: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language

I read Randy's input on this discussion as saying now that we have standard
connectors and standard wireless connection, we don't need to accommodate
non-standard connectors. I agree with this, and believe that the regs
should push industry towards standard connectors.



There are only 2 ways I can see permitting non-standard connectors:

- requiring the product to include all the necessary AT functionality
(making it a closed product)

- requiring the company to provide, on demand, adapters between their
non-standard connector and a standard connector used by AT



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






_____


From: Thomas Albin [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 10:08 AM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language

Hi Jim,

Doesn't your suggested wording eliminate any allowance of non-standard
connectors? How about something along the lines of:



Where MULTIPLE input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or
wireless, are provided, AT LEAST ONE OF such connection capabilities

shall comply with publicly available industry standards."



rather than



Where input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or wireless,
are provided, such connection capabilities

shall comply with publicly available industry standards."



Best regards,

Tom Albin

On Jun 1, 2007, at 5:31 AM, Jim Tobias wrote:





Where input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or wireless,
are provided, such connection capabilities

shall comply with publicly available industry standards."

From: don@lexmark.com
Date: Fri, Jun 01 2007 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: Standard ports language

I believe this thread is massively problematic because it assumes a
"teitac hardware" device is a general purpose computing platform. I don't
believe that is necessarily the case.

There are going to be cases where a hardware device needs to have a
proprietary connector. For example, a large multifunction printer may
have a connector for connection to a duplexing unit or to a mailbox/sorter
or for some other purpose. Are you expecting this connector to be capable
of providing anything useful from an assistive technology perspective?

Even if the manufacturer used an industry standard interface, nothing may
be exposed via that interface that would be usable for assistive
technology. For example, a number of Lexmark printers have a USB port on
the front so that a user can walk up and insert a USB memory device (aka
USB key) and then print the documents contained therein. If someone were
to have developed assistive technology that supported a USB interface,
attaching it to this industry standard USB port would serve no purpose.

Unless a hardware device has the ability to have special drivers loaded to
take advantage of an industry standard connection (or any other connector
for that matter), the connector is virtually guaranteed to be useless for
the purposes of assistive technology or anything else except what the
manufacturer intended.

***************************************************************************
Don Wright = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = / = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Director of Standards
Lexmark International Treasurer, IEEE Standards Association
C14/082-3 Vice-Chair, INCITS Executive Board
740 New Circle Rd Past Chair, IEEE SA Standards Board
Lexington, Ky 40550 Member, IEEE SA Board of Governors
859-825-4808 (phone) Member, IEEE CS SAB & W3C AC
603-963-8352 (fax) Director, IEEE-ISTO
***************************************************************************





"Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
06/01/2007 10:34 AM
Please respond to "TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"

To: "'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
cc:
Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language


I read Randy's input on this discussion as saying now that we have
standard connectors and standard wireless connection, we don't need to
accommodate non-standard connectors. I agree with this, and believe that
the regs should push industry towards standard connectors.

There are only 2 ways I can see permitting non-standard connectors:
- requiring the product to include all the necessary AT functionality
(making it a closed product)
- requiring the company to provide, on demand, adapters between their
non-standard connector and a standard connector used by AT

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


From: Thomas Albin [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 10:08 AM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language

Hi Jim,
Doesn't your suggested wording eliminate any allowance of non-standard
connectors? How about something along the lines of:

Where MULTIPLE input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or
wireless, are provided, AT LEAST ONE OF such connection capabilities
shall comply with publicly available industry standards."

rather than

Where input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or wireless,
are provided, such connection capabilities
shall comply with publicly available industry standards."

Best regards,
Tom Albin
On Jun 1, 2007, at 5:31 AM, Jim Tobias wrote:

Where input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or wireless,
are provided, such connection capabilities
shall comply with publicly available industry standards."

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Jun 01 2007 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: Standard ports language

Yes

Definitely need to move away from connector to connection.




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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 5:32 AM
To: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'
Subject: [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language

Why "alternate input or output connectors"? Aren't we talking about the
regular connectors? How about using the phrase "connection

capabilities, whether wired or wireless"?



So I propose:



"Where input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or wireless,
are provided, such connection capabilities

shall comply with publicly available industry standards."



***
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: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:49 AM
To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee';
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Standard ports language

If you read the wording carefully it says:

- if you have expansion slots - one shall comply with publicly available
industry standards

- if you have ports - one shall comply with publicly available industry
standards

- if you have connectors- one shall comply with publicly available industry
standards

- if you have a wireless connection - one shall comply with publicly
available industry standards



They are all different types so you can't use one for another.



I don't think we can use these words as is.



I do think we want to have something which is generic.



Perhaps: "Where alternate input or output connections are provided, such
interface connectivity shall be available through a connection that complies
with publicly available industry standards."



Or some such.






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


_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:10 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-telecom] Standard ports language



Telecom and Hardware subcommittee members,

At the TEITAC meeting last week, the hardware subcommittee proposed the
following language for application across all products:

"Where provided, at least one of each type of expansion slots, ports,
connectors, and wireless connections shall comply with publicly available
industry standards."

Questions were raised by several members of the TEITAC committee regarding
its application across all products especially Telecom. Based on those
comments the following options regarding this language are proposed for
discussion:

1 - the language is fine since it allows it adds wireless as a means of
support "industry standard ports". For example the use of Bluetooth with
phone headset. Thus, no changes or additional details are required and it
should be applied across the entire product breadth.

2 - There needs to be some additional language to address proprietary ports
and how they can be made accessible.

3 - The language should be limited to specific products, for example, it
originally was a desktop and portables requirement and should only apply to
those products.

Please provide feedback and discussion on this topic so that the hardware
subcommittee can develop a final recommendation.

Thanks,

Rob

Rob Nerhood | Experience Design Group | Ergonomics Engineer
Dell, Inc. | One Dell Way | Round Rock, Texas 78682 - 7000
direct 512.723.2763

This communication and all attachments are confidential and may be legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, (i) please do not read
or disclose any content to others, (ii) please notify the sender by reply
mail immediately, and (iii) please permanently delete this communication
from your system. Failure to follow this process may be unlawful and
subject to prosecution. Thank you for your cooperation.

From: Randy Marsden
Date: Fri, Jun 01 2007 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Standard ports language

Very well stated.

Jim and Gregg¹s suggestion to replace the word ³connector² with
³connection², may cover this, as long as we are clear what ³connection²
means. Here¹s my stab at it:

³Connection means a mechanism whereby interoperability between two devices
is made possible, and includes the mechanical, electrical, and software
interconnection between the two devices²

Also, we should be clear that the connections we¹re talking about are those
meant for human interaction (not machine to machine). So, a connector for a
duplexer on a multifunction printer would definitely not apply. Something
like:

³Standard Connection means an interconnection through which human
interaction is made possible².

-Randy

------------------------------------------------
Randy Marsden, P.Eng.
President & CEO, Madentec Limited
ATIA Global Policy Chair

780-450-8926 ext. 223
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Reply-To: "TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 10:53:53 -0400
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language
>

>
> I believe this thread is massively problematic because it assumes a "teitac
> hardware" device is a general purpose computing platform. I don't believe
> that is necessarily the case.
>
> There are going to be cases where a hardware device needs to have a
> proprietary connector. For example, a large multifunction printer may have a
> connector for connection to a duplexing unit or to a mailbox/sorter or for
> some other purpose. Are you expecting this connector to be capable of
> providing anything useful from an assistive technology perspective?
>
> Even if the manufacturer used an industry standard interface, nothing may be
> exposed via that interface that would be usable for assistive technology. For
> example, a number of Lexmark printers have a USB port on the front so that a
> user can walk up and insert a USB memory device (aka USB key) and then print
> the documents contained therein. If someone were to have developed assistive
> technology that supported a USB interface, attaching it to this industry
> standard USB port would serve no purpose.
>
> Unless a hardware device has the ability to have special drivers loaded to
> take advantage of an industry standard connection (or any other connector for
> that matter), the connector is virtually guaranteed to be useless for the
> purposes of assistive technology or anything else except what the manufacturer
> intended.
>
>
> ***************************************************************************
> Don Wright = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = / = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Director of Standards
> Lexmark International Treasurer, IEEE Standards Association
> C14/082-3 Vice-Chair, INCITS Executive Board
> 740 New Circle Rd Past Chair, IEEE SA Standards Board
> Lexington, Ky 40550 Member, IEEE SA Board of Governors
> 859-825-4808 (phone) Member, IEEE CS SAB & W3C AC
> 603-963-8352 (fax) Director, IEEE-ISTO
> ***************************************************************************
>
>
>
>
> "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = 06/01/2007 10:34 AM
> Please respond to "TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
> To: "'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> cc:
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language
>
>
> I read Randy's input on this discussion as saying now that we have standard
> connectors and standard wireless connection, we don't need to accommodate
> non-standard connectors. I agree with this, and believe that the regs should
> push industry towards standard connectors.
>
> There are only 2 ways I can see permitting non-standard connectors:
> - requiring the product to include all the necessary AT functionality (making
> it a closed product)
> - requiring the company to provide, on demand, adapters between their
> non-standard connector and a standard connector used by AT
>
>
> ***
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> skype jimtobias
>
>
>
>
> From: Thomas Albin [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 10:08 AM
> To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language
>
> Hi Jim,
> Doesn't your suggested wording eliminate any allowance of non-standard
> connectors? How about something along the lines of:
>
> Where MULTIPLE input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or
> wireless, are provided, AT LEAST ONE OF such connection capabilities
> shall comply with publicly available industry standards."
>
> rather than
>
> Where input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or wireless, are
> provided, such connection capabilities
> shall comply with publicly available industry standards."
>
> Best regards,
> Tom Albin
> On Jun 1, 2007, at 5:31 AM, Jim Tobias wrote:
>
> Where input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or wireless, are
> provided, such connection capabilities
> shall comply with publicly available industry standards."
>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Jun 01 2007 6:00 PM
Subject: Re: Standard ports language

I think you would need to add "interface" to your definition. Power
connectors would be included otherwise.




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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randy Marsden
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:20 PM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language

Very well stated.

Jim and Gregg's suggestion to replace the word "connector" with
"connection", may cover this, as long as we are clear what "connection"
means. Here's my stab at it:

"Connection means a mechanism whereby interoperability between two devices
is made possible, and includes the mechanical, electrical, and software
interconnection between the two devices"

Also, we should be clear that the connections we're talking about are those
meant for human interaction (not machine to machine). So, a connector for a
duplexer on a multifunction printer would definitely not apply. Something
like:

"Standard Connection means an interconnection through which human
interaction is made possible".

-Randy

------------------------------------------------
Randy Marsden, P.Eng.
President & CEO, Madentec Limited
ATIA Global Policy Chair

780-450-8926 ext. 223
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Reply-To: "TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2007 10:53:53 -0400
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language




I believe this thread is massively problematic because it assumes a "teitac
hardware" device is a general purpose computing platform. I don't believe
that is necessarily the case.

There are going to be cases where a hardware device needs to have a
proprietary connector. For example, a large multifunction printer may have
a connector for connection to a duplexing unit or to a mailbox/sorter or for
some other purpose. Are you expecting this connector to be capable of
providing anything useful from an assistive technology perspective?

Even if the manufacturer used an industry standard interface, nothing may be
exposed via that interface that would be usable for assistive technology.
For example, a number of Lexmark printers have a USB port on the front so
that a user can walk up and insert a USB memory device (aka USB key) and
then print the documents contained therein. If someone were to have
developed assistive technology that supported a USB interface, attaching it
to this industry standard USB port would serve no purpose.

Unless a hardware device has the ability to have special drivers loaded to
take advantage of an industry standard connection (or any other connector
for that matter), the connector is virtually guaranteed to be useless for
the purposes of assistive technology or anything else except what the
manufacturer intended.


***************************************************************************
Don Wright = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = / = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Director of Standards
Lexmark International Treasurer, IEEE Standards Association
C14/082-3 Vice-Chair, INCITS Executive Board
740 New Circle Rd Past Chair, IEEE SA Standards Board
Lexington, Ky 40550 Member, IEEE SA Board of Governors
859-825-4808 (phone) Member, IEEE CS SAB & W3C AC
603-963-8352 (fax) Director, IEEE-ISTO
***************************************************************************




"Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = 06/01/2007 10:34 AM
Please respond to "TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
To: "'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
cc:
Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language


I read Randy's input on this discussion as saying now that we have standard
connectors and standard wireless connection, we don't need to accommodate
non-standard connectors. I agree with this, and believe that the regs
should push industry towards standard connectors.

There are only 2 ways I can see permitting non-standard connectors:
- requiring the product to include all the necessary AT functionality
(making it a closed product)
- requiring the company to provide, on demand, adapters between their
non-standard connector and a standard connector used by AT


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




_____


From: Thomas Albin [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 10:08 AM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language

Hi Jim,
Doesn't your suggested wording eliminate any allowance of non-standard
connectors? How about something along the lines of:

Where MULTIPLE input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or
wireless, are provided, AT LEAST ONE OF such connection capabilities
shall comply with publicly available industry standards."

rather than

Where input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or wireless,
are provided, such connection capabilities
shall comply with publicly available industry standards."

Best regards,
Tom Albin
On Jun 1, 2007, at 5:31 AM, Jim Tobias wrote:

Where input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or wireless,
are provided, such connection capabilities
shall comply with publicly available industry standards."

From: David Poehlman
Date: Sat, Jun 02 2007 6:00 AM
Subject: Re: Standard ports language

I agree, but do we have to specify input/output?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 6:31 AM
Subject: [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language


Why "alternate input or output connectors"? Aren't we talking about the
regular connectors? How about using the phrase "connection
capabilities, whether wired or wireless"?

So I propose:

"Where input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or wireless,
are provided, such connection capabilities
shall comply with publicly available industry standards."


***
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: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:49 AM
To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee';
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Standard ports language



If you read the wording carefully it says:

- if you have expansion slots - one shall comply with publicly available
industry standards

- if you have ports - one shall comply with publicly available industry
standards

- if you have connectors- one shall comply with publicly available industry
standards

- if you have a wireless connection - one shall comply with publicly
available industry standards



They are all different types so you can't use one for another.



I don't think we can use these words as is.



I do think we want to have something which is generic.



Perhaps: "Where alternate input or output connections are provided, such
interface connectivity shall be available through a connection that complies
with publicly available industry standards."



Or some such.






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


_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:10 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-telecom] Standard ports language



Telecom and Hardware subcommittee members,

At the TEITAC meeting last week, the hardware subcommittee proposed the
following language for application across all products:

"Where provided, at least one of each type of expansion slots, ports,
connectors, and wireless connections shall comply with publicly available
industry standards."

Questions were raised by several members of the TEITAC committee regarding
its application across all products especially Telecom. Based on those
comments the following options regarding this language are proposed for
discussion:

1 - the language is fine since it allows it adds wireless as a means of
support "industry standard ports". For example the use of Bluetooth with
phone headset. Thus, no changes or additional details are required and it
should be applied across the entire product breadth.

2 - There needs to be some additional language to address proprietary ports
and how they can be made accessible.

3 - The language should be limited to specific products, for example, it
originally was a desktop and portables requirement and should only apply to
those products.

Please provide feedback and discussion on this topic so that the hardware
subcommittee can develop a final recommendation.

Thanks,

Rob

Rob Nerhood | Experience Design Group | Ergonomics Engineer
Dell, Inc. | One Dell Way | Round Rock, Texas 78682 - 7000
direct 512.723.2763

This communication and all attachments are confidential and may be legally
privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, (i) please do not read
or disclose any content to others, (ii) please notify the sender by reply
mail immediately, and (iii) please permanently delete this communication
from your system. Failure to follow this process may be unlawful and
subject to prosecution. Thank you for your cooperation.




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

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sat, Jun 02 2007 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: Standard ports language

input/output is specified because power connectors, disk drives etc don't
have to work with AT (don't have to be standard connectors for
accessibility) .




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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-hardware-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David Poehlman
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:55 AM
> To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language
>
> I agree, but do we have to specify input/output?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 6:31 AM
> Subject: [teitac-hardware] Standard ports language
>
>
> Why "alternate input or output connectors"? Aren't we talking about the
> regular connectors? How about using the phrase "connection
> capabilities, whether wired or wireless"?
>
> So I propose:
>
> "Where input or output connection capabilities, whether wired or wireless,
> are provided, such connection capabilities
> shall comply with publicly available industry standards."
>
>
> ***
> 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: Friday, June 01, 2007 1:49 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee';
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Standard ports language
>
>
>
> If you read the wording carefully it says:
>
> - if you have expansion slots - one shall comply with publicly available
> industry standards
>
> - if you have ports - one shall comply with publicly available industry
> standards
>
> - if you have connectors- one shall comply with publicly available
> industry
> standards
>
> - if you have a wireless connection - one shall comply with publicly
> available industry standards
>
>
>
> They are all different types so you can't use one for another.
>
>
>
> I don't think we can use these words as is.
>
>
>
> I do think we want to have something which is generic.
>
>
>
> Perhaps: "Where alternate input or output connections are provided, such
> interface connectivity shall be available through a connection that
> complies
> with publicly available industry standards."
>
>
>
> Or some such.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2007 9:10 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-telecom] Standard ports language
>
>
>
> Telecom and Hardware subcommittee members,
>
> At the TEITAC meeting last week, the hardware subcommittee proposed the
> following language for application across all products:
>
> "Where provided, at least one of each type of expansion slots, ports,
> connectors, and wireless connections shall comply with publicly available
> industry standards."
>
> Questions were raised by several members of the TEITAC committee regarding
> its application across all products especially Telecom. Based on those
> comments the following options regarding this language are proposed for
> discussion:
>
> 1 - the language is fine since it allows it adds wireless as a means of
> support "industry standard ports". For example the use of Bluetooth with
> phone headset. Thus, no changes or additional details are required and it
> should be applied across the entire product breadth.
>
> 2 - There needs to be some additional language to address proprietary
> ports
> and how they can be made accessible.
>
> 3 - The language should be limited to specific products, for example, it
> originally was a desktop and portables requirement and should only apply
> to
> those products.
>
> Please provide feedback and discussion on this topic so that the hardware
> subcommittee can develop a final recommendation.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Rob
>
> Rob Nerhood | Experience Design Group | Ergonomics Engineer
> Dell, Inc. | One Dell Way | Round Rock, Texas 78682 - 7000
> direct 512.723.2763
>
> This communication and all attachments are confidential and may be legally
> privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, (i) please do not read
> or disclose any content to others, (ii) please notify the sender by reply
> mail immediately, and (iii) please permanently delete this communication
> from your system. Failure to follow this process may be unlawful and
> subject to prosecution. Thank you for your cooperation.
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ------
>
>
>