Thread Subject: 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Debbie Cook
Date: Wed, Jun 06 2007 1:30 PM
Subject: 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes

Oops. I forgot these notes from the May plenary:
We were asked to specifically consider issues of closed by policy with DRM
as an example. Also to consider products with no OS.

I don't know of anything specific to require of DRM products that would not
be required of other products? Open to how we should incorporate mention of
these--requirements? In a note?

Debbie Cook
WA Assistive Technology Program
Box 357920
Seattle, WA 98195-7920
Phone: 206-685-4181

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Wed, Jun 06 2007 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes

What we would require of products that include DRM is that when
assistive technology is used it can not be "locked" out by the DRM
scheme for any reason, especially based upon copyrights, as exclusion of
people with disabilities is not supported in copyrights law to my
knowledge.



Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Debbie Cook
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 3:21 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-closed] 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes

Oops. I forgot these notes from the May plenary:
We were asked to specifically consider issues of closed by policy with
DRM as an example. Also to consider products with no OS.

I don't know of anything specific to require of DRM products that would
not be required of other products? Open to how we should incorporate
mention of these--requirements? In a note?

Debbie Cook
WA Assistive Technology Program
Box 357920
Seattle, WA 98195-7920
Phone: 206-685-4181

From: Debbie Cook
Date: Wed, Jun 06 2007 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes

That's an interesting turn. In all other cases we've said that products can
be compatible with AT or they can elect to not be. We've said that when they
elect not to be then they must provide comparable access as if they were
compatible with AT. But for DRM, you're proposing they do not have the
option? They cannot lock out AT and provide their own AT functionality if
desired? If this becomes our recommendation, I propose that we write it and
ship it over to software for inclusion there because it would fit more
closely with their focus of assuming compatibility with AT.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 12:23 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes


What we would require of products that include DRM is that when
assistive technology is used it can not be "locked" out by the DRM
scheme for any reason, especially based upon copyrights, as exclusion of
people with disabilities is not supported in copyrights law to my
knowledge.



Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Debbie Cook
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 3:21 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-closed] 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes

Oops. I forgot these notes from the May plenary:
We were asked to specifically consider issues of closed by policy with
DRM as an example. Also to consider products with no OS.

I don't know of anything specific to require of DRM products that would
not be required of other products? Open to how we should incorporate
mention of these--requirements? In a note?

Debbie Cook
WA Assistive Technology Program
Box 357920
Seattle, WA 98195-7920
Phone: 206-685-4181

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Jun 06 2007 2:15 PM
Subject: Re: 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes

If it can be read by AT then it can be read by anything and there is no DRM.


I think it should instead be something like

Software that presents content that is protected by DRM in such a way that
AT cannot access it to render it into accessible forms must directly present
the information in at least large print visual and auditory forms and output
the content to secure tactile displays.

(and yes - this is actually a software/player issue)


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Debbie Cook
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 2:34 PM
> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes
>
> That's an interesting turn. In all other cases we've said
> that products can be compatible with AT or they can elect to
> not be. We've said that when they elect not to be then they
> must provide comparable access as if they were compatible
> with AT. But for DRM, you're proposing they do not have the
> option? They cannot lock out AT and provide their own AT
> functionality if desired? If this becomes our recommendation,
> I propose that we write it and ship it over to software for
> inclusion there because it would fit more closely with their
> focus of assuming compatibility with AT.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 12:23 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes
>
>
> What we would require of products that include DRM is that
> when assistive technology is used it can not be "locked" out
> by the DRM scheme for any reason, especially based upon
> copyrights, as exclusion of people with disabilities is not
> supported in copyrights law to my knowledge.
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Debbie Cook
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 3:21 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-closed] 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes
>
> Oops. I forgot these notes from the May plenary:
> We were asked to specifically consider issues of closed by
> policy with DRM as an example. Also to consider products with no OS.
>
> I don't know of anything specific to require of DRM products
> that would not be required of other products? Open to how we
> should incorporate mention of these--requirements? In a note?
>
> Debbie Cook
> WA Assistive Technology Program
> Box 357920
> Seattle, WA 98195-7920
> Phone: 206-685-4181
>
>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Jun 06 2007 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes

This is very good. If it opens itself to AT it wouldn't be closed. But
when we define what AT is sufficient (not by naming them, but by describing
them) we may need to keep in mind the trustworthy bit.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 3:09 PM
> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes
>
> I'd add that whatever wording is used should be flexible
> enough to allow for the existance of a handshake program that
> allows the app to open itself to trusted AT. Using an
> accessibility API is not adequate to turn off DRM - people
> could create an app that harvests content simply by
> identifying that app as an assistive technology in that case
> - the app with the DRM needs to be able to have the
> confidence that the AT is trustworthy.
>
> AWK
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Hoffman,
> > Allen
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 3:23 PM
> > To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes
> >
> > What we would require of products that include DRM is that when
> > assistive technology is used it can not be "locked" out by the DRM
> > scheme for any reason, especially based upon copyrights, as
> exclusion
> > of people with disabilities is not supported in copyrights
> law to my
> > knowledge.
> >
> >
> >
> > Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Debbie
> > Cook
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 3:21 PM
> > To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > Subject: [teitac-closed] 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes
> >
> > Oops. I forgot these notes from the May plenary:
> > We were asked to specifically consider issues of closed by
> policy with
> > DRM as an example. Also to consider products with no OS.
> >
> > I don't know of anything specific to require of DRM products that
> > would not be required of other products? Open to how we should
> > incorporate mention of these--requirements? In a note?
> >
> > Debbie Cook
> > WA Assistive Technology Program
> > Box 357920
> > Seattle, WA 98195-7920
> > Phone: 206-685-4181
> >
> >

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick
Date: Wed, Jun 06 2007 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes

I'd add that whatever wording is used should be flexible enough to allow
for the existance of a handshake program that allows the app to open
itself to trusted AT. Using an accessibility API is not adequate to
turn off DRM - people could create an app that harvests content simply
by identifying that app as an assistive technology in that case - the
app with the DRM needs to be able to have the confidence that the AT is
trustworthy.

AWK

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Hoffman, Allen
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 3:23 PM
> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes
>
> What we would require of products that include DRM is that
> when assistive technology is used it can not be "locked" out
> by the DRM scheme for any reason, especially based upon
> copyrights, as exclusion of people with disabilities is not
> supported in copyrights law to my knowledge.
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Debbie Cook
> Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 3:21 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-closed] 1194.25 (a) Additional NOtes
>
> Oops. I forgot these notes from the May plenary:
> We were asked to specifically consider issues of closed by
> policy with DRM as an example. Also to consider products with no OS.
>
> I don't know of anything specific to require of DRM products
> that would not be required of other products? Open to how we
> should incorporate mention of these--requirements? In a note?
>
> Debbie Cook
> WA Assistive Technology Program
> Box 357920
> Seattle, WA 98195-7920
> Phone: 206-685-4181
>
>