Thread Subject: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Diane Golden
Date: Mon, Oct 30 2006 4:15 PM
Subject: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products

Some additional thoughts/issues from the application side on closed,
self-contained products.

The current closed, self-contained product standards (b) through (j) provide
a pretty minimal level of built-in access features through those technical
requirements. But then (a) trumps everything by requiring the product "be
usable by people with disabilities without requiring an end-user to attach
AT to the product." Literally applied, that means each and every closed,
self-contained product should have a wide range of built-in access features
to meet the functional limitations of a variety of disabilities. As a
result, procurement folks should be rating higher (and agencies should be
buying) products with the most built-in access features.

Unfortunately, building in a whole bunch of access features in low-end
products can actually result in an individual with a disablity getting a
product they cannot use. The classic example is a calculator which is
identified as a self-contained closed product. Accessibility features on a
calculator might include enlarged keys, large print key markings, a big
screen display and speech output. However, a product with ALL those
features might NOT meet the needs of blind person for whom the enlarged keys
make touch key entry nearly impossible. The 508 rules as currently written
do not allow for access features to be considered as part of a "product
line" as does 255. So the fact that one can purchase different basic
calculators with different access features is not figured into the 508
standards application nor is the fact that lots of built-in access features
can actually "trip over" one another if they are not software features that
can be toggled on and off. With closed, self-contained products (and
actually some telecom products) this creates access problems rather than
solves them.

Also in application there seems to be a major distinction between closed,
self-contained products that are used within a work setting (printer, fax,
copier, DVD player, etc.) versus products that are exclusively designed to
be used by the mass public (kiosk, ATM, voting machine.) With the first,
not only do you have the option of purchasing items from a line of products
to meet different access need, but for many of these functions you also have
other alternatives e.g. a combined printer/copier that can be operated via
individual computer station. With public use products, you have few options
other than the product (as it stands) delivering all the accessibility
needed (you might be able to attach headsets or a switch, but use of
personal AT overall is very limited.)

Are these fundementally two different types of closed products? What does
that mean for standards needed? Should the concept of product line be
utilized? Does this second group of products require more rigerous
standards than the current self-contained, closed standards to deliver
access? Should those standards be roughly comparable to the Voluntary
Voting System Guidelines adopted by the Election Assistance Commission?

Diane

Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
Missouri Assistive Technology
816/350-5280 (direct voice)
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.at.mo.gov

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Nov 08 2006 2:40 PM
Subject: Re: 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.

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Wed, Nov 08 2006 5:40 PM
Subject: Re: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products

I'm concerned about a definition that includes "policy restrictions". It
just seems
to open up too much potential abuse. After all, we're insisting that the
device
be open and accessible for policy reasons as well. Why does *our* policy
imperative
take a back seat?

Security, content protections, and others do not usually conflict with a
flexible user
interface. They're all about limiting the display of certain content, not
how users
select it. The one compelling example you gave, Gregg, was of the content
whose visual
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
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>

From: Diane Golden
Date: Mon, Nov 13 2006 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: 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.

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

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.
>
>
>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Nov 13 2006 1:20 PM
Subject: Re: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products

RE closed by policy.

I think we need to differentiate between closing the ability to load
arbitrary software onto a product and allowing a substitute interface.

Of course there is the 'data logging' issue whenever you allow interface
substitution. That is a tough one. Have to be careful there.

Most "closed by policy" is for security reasons (phishing, key logging,
privacy, virus). Sometimes it is for marketing though when it is around
DRM.



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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:39 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC self contained/closed
> products subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
> 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.
> >
> >
> >

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Mon, Nov 13 2006 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 3:18 PM
> To: 'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee';
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
> RE closed by policy.
>
> I think we need to differentiate between closing the ability
> to load arbitrary software onto a product and allowing a
> substitute interface.

Right -- and that's why an Accessibility API standard makes sense. It
reduces the anxiety of the "closed by policy" advocates, because it could
say that AT is not allowed to overstep the interface boundary.

> Of course there is the 'data logging' issue whenever you
> allow interface
> substitution. That is a tough one. Have to be careful there.

What's "Data logging"? You mean capturing what others do on a public
terminal to grab their passwords, etc.?

> Most "closed by policy" is for security reasons (phishing,
> key logging,
> privacy, virus). Sometimes it is for marketing though when
> it is around DRM.

Right. But I'd like to address the DRM issue (digital rights management).
In your presentation last week you raised an interesting case: a media
entity licenses the eBook text to one company and the audio to another.
Clearly a problem for accessibility, because we need access to both text and
audio. But why should the federal government help create this marketing
complexity? Why not require all media purchased by the federal government
to be equitably and efficiently available in both text and audio formats?
That's what we do already for documentation; why not for the content itself?

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Nov 13 2006 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products

Yes. I would say that is correct. If a product is closed (e.g. a kiosk) or
otherwise closed by policy, the only way that people with disabilities can
access and use it is if the accessibility is built in. This does not need
to require AT. Almost all technologies from computers to phones have
speech capability. Voicing can just be part of the software package used
on the closed product (e.g. kiosk or card catalog etc.).

The alternative is that people with disabilities cannot use them and cannot
make them accessible - which is the opposite of the goal of 508.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:17 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.
>
>
>

From: Brent Durst
Date: Tue, Nov 14 2006 5:15 AM
Subject: Re: Additional issues with closed, self-contained products

Hello, What is the dial in info for todays call? It's at 10am PST Correct?

Brent Durst
Zune, Content Operations
425.705.1664
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 7:57 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with closed, self-contained products

Yes. I would say that is correct. If a product is closed (e.g. a kiosk) or
otherwise closed by policy, the only way that people with disabilities can
access and use it is if the accessibility is built in. This does not need
to require AT. Almost all technologies from computers to phones have
speech capability. Voicing can just be part of the software package used
on the closed product (e.g. kiosk or card catalog etc.).

The alternative is that people with disabilities cannot use them and cannot
make them accessible - which is the opposite of the goal of 508.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:17 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.
>
>
>

From: Diane Golden
Date: Tue, Nov 14 2006 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products

So to be 508 "conformant" each computer system closed by policy would need
to have scanning software to allow for switch access? Would any kind of
built-in screen enlargement be OK, or would the magification need to meet a
specific magnification standard as the VVSG requires?

Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
Missouri Assistive Technology
816/350-5280 (direct voice)
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.at.mo.gov


-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:57 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC self contained/closed products
subcommittee'
Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
closed,self-contained products


Yes. I would say that is correct. If a product is closed (e.g. a kiosk) or
otherwise closed by policy, the only way that people with disabilities can
access and use it is if the accessibility is built in. This does not need
to require AT. Almost all technologies from computers to phones have
speech capability. Voicing can just be part of the software package used
on the closed product (e.g. kiosk or card catalog etc.).

The alternative is that people with disabilities cannot use them and cannot
make them accessible - which is the opposite of the goal of 508.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:17 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.
>
>
>

From: Rex Lint
Date: Tue, Nov 14 2006 10:15 AM
Subject: Re: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products

Diane,

Are you inferring that a PC, if it's "closed by policy," needs MORE
ACCESSIBILITY than a "closed, self-contained product"? I assume that you're
thinking that the level of acc'y specified for closed products is
insufficient. If that's the case, let's change the level of acc'y for those.

Is it the case, in your mind, that if a vendor chooses a PC as the basis of
a product that is closed, they incur a heavier burden to make it more
accessible than had they built it from discrete logic? That would seem to
be steering vendors in directions that might be, overall, not so good.

Rex

Rex Lint, Consultant
Chair, Section 508 Working Group
Information Technology Association of America
PH: 603-860-7651, FAX: 603-882-6612


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:23 AM
To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; 'TEITAC self contained/closed products
subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with closed,self-contained
products

So to be 508 "conformant" each computer system closed by policy would need
to have scanning software to allow for switch access? Would any kind of
built-in screen enlargement be OK, or would the magification need to meet a
specific magnification standard as the VVSG requires?

Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
Missouri Assistive Technology
816/350-5280 (direct voice)
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.at.mo.gov


-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:57 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC self contained/closed products
subcommittee'
Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
closed,self-contained products


Yes. I would say that is correct. If a product is closed (e.g. a kiosk) or
otherwise closed by policy, the only way that people with disabilities can
access and use it is if the accessibility is built in. This does not need
to require AT. Almost all technologies from computers to phones have
speech capability. Voicing can just be part of the software package used
on the closed product (e.g. kiosk or card catalog etc.).

The alternative is that people with disabilities cannot use them and cannot
make them accessible - which is the opposite of the goal of 508.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:17 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.
>
>
>

From: Diane Golden
Date: Tue, Nov 14 2006 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products

No, my basic point is that there are vastly different access expectations
related to products closed by policy vs. the more traditional group of
closed products (again voting machines). Trying to write technical
standards for a group of products this diverse will be extremely difficult.
Many closed by policy product examples are public use computer stations. If
a public employment center has a computer lab that individuals can use to
create a resume, apply on-line for jobs, etc. the policy may be that the
computers are closed in that the public cannot load their own AT. However,
that doesn't mean that individual stations within the lab are not loaded
with AT with some stations designed to provide adaptive output and others
adaptive input options. If instead each station must meet a set of built-in
access standards, the robustness of the access will not likely be equal to
that provided by the AT on individual stations.

Products like voting machines or specific use kiosks tend to have a much
narrower purpose/focus that makes it a little easier to determine where to
draw the line on what should be built in access. That will be exceedingly
difficult to do with computer stations closed by policy.

Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
Missouri Assistive Technology
816/350-5280 (direct voice)
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.at.mo.gov


-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Lint [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:10 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC self contained/closed products
subcommittee'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'
Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
closed,self-contained products


Diane,

Are you inferring that a PC, if it's "closed by policy," needs MORE
ACCESSIBILITY than a "closed, self-contained product"? I assume that you're
thinking that the level of acc'y specified for closed products is
insufficient. If that's the case, let's change the level of acc'y for those.

Is it the case, in your mind, that if a vendor chooses a PC as the basis of
a product that is closed, they incur a heavier burden to make it more
accessible than had they built it from discrete logic? That would seem to
be steering vendors in directions that might be, overall, not so good.

Rex

Rex Lint, Consultant
Chair, Section 508 Working Group
Information Technology Association of America
PH: 603-860-7651, FAX: 603-882-6612


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:23 AM
To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; 'TEITAC self contained/closed products
subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with closed,self-contained
products

So to be 508 "conformant" each computer system closed by policy would need
to have scanning software to allow for switch access? Would any kind of
built-in screen enlargement be OK, or would the magification need to meet a
specific magnification standard as the VVSG requires?

Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
Missouri Assistive Technology
816/350-5280 (direct voice)
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.at.mo.gov


-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:57 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC self contained/closed products
subcommittee'
Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
closed,self-contained products


Yes. I would say that is correct. If a product is closed (e.g. a kiosk) or
otherwise closed by policy, the only way that people with disabilities can
access and use it is if the accessibility is built in. This does not need
to require AT. Almost all technologies from computers to phones have
speech capability. Voicing can just be part of the software package used
on the closed product (e.g. kiosk or card catalog etc.).

The alternative is that people with disabilities cannot use them and cannot
make them accessible - which is the opposite of the goal of 508.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:17 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.
>
>
>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Nov 14 2006 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products

This is a good discussion.

In Diane's example, the computers are closed by policy. So some of them
have AT installed on them (built into them before they are closed). Thus
they would meet 'closed system' access requirements because they met the
built in accessibility (by added AT) before they were closed. Or rather, in
their "closed state" they meet all the closed product guidelines.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Diane Golden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:53 AM
> To: 'Rex Lint'; 'TEITAC self contained/closed products
> subcommittee'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'
> Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
> No, my basic point is that there are vastly different access
> expectations related to products closed by policy vs. the
> more traditional group of closed products (again voting
> machines). Trying to write technical standards for a group
> of products this diverse will be extremely difficult.
> Many closed by policy product examples are public use
> computer stations. If a public employment center has a
> computer lab that individuals can use to create a resume,
> apply on-line for jobs, etc. the policy may be that the
> computers are closed in that the public cannot load their own
> AT. However, that doesn't mean that individual stations
> within the lab are not loaded with AT with some stations
> designed to provide adaptive output and others adaptive input
> options. If instead each station must meet a set of built-in
> access standards, the robustness of the access will not
> likely be equal to that provided by the AT on individual stations.
>
> Products like voting machines or specific use kiosks tend to
> have a much narrower purpose/focus that makes it a little
> easier to determine where to draw the line on what should be
> built in access. That will be exceedingly difficult to do
> with computer stations closed by policy.
>
> Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
> Missouri Assistive Technology
> 816/350-5280 (direct voice)
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> www.at.mo.gov
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rex Lint [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:10 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC self contained/closed
> products subcommittee'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'
> Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
>
> Diane,
>
> Are you inferring that a PC, if it's "closed by policy,"
> needs MORE ACCESSIBILITY than a "closed, self-contained
> product"? I assume that you're thinking that the level of
> acc'y specified for closed products is insufficient. If
> that's the case, let's change the level of acc'y for those.
>
> Is it the case, in your mind, that if a vendor chooses a PC
> as the basis of a product that is closed, they incur a
> heavier burden to make it more accessible than had they built
> it from discrete logic? That would seem to be steering
> vendors in directions that might be, overall, not so good.
>
> Rex
>
> Rex Lint, Consultant
> Chair, Section 508 Working Group
> Information Technology Association of America
> PH: 603-860-7651, FAX: 603-882-6612
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:23 AM
> To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; 'TEITAC self contained/closed
> products subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
> So to be 508 "conformant" each computer system closed by
> policy would need to have scanning software to allow for
> switch access? Would any kind of built-in screen enlargement
> be OK, or would the magification need to meet a specific
> magnification standard as the VVSG requires?
>
> Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
> Missouri Assistive Technology
> 816/350-5280 (direct voice)
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> www.at.mo.gov
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:57 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC self contained/closed
> products subcommittee'
> Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
>
> Yes. I would say that is correct. If a product is closed
> (e.g. a kiosk) or otherwise closed by policy, the only way
> that people with disabilities can access and use it is if the
> accessibility is built in. This does not need
> to require AT. Almost all technologies from computers to phones have
> speech capability. Voicing can just be part of the software
> package used
> on the closed product (e.g. kiosk or card catalog etc.).
>
> The alternative is that people with disabilities cannot use
> them and cannot make them accessible - which is the opposite
> of the goal of 508.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
> > Golden
> > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:17 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.
> >
> >
> >

From: Rex Lint
Date: Tue, Nov 14 2006 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products

"Or rather, in their "closed state" they meet all the closed product
guidelines." {Gregg Vanderheiden]

...And they might NOT meet the provisions for computer operating
system/applications nor allow conformant web pages to be accessible.

Perhaps we draft an observation that policy can affect accessibility as much
as technical provisions do, and that policy should be adjusted to allow for
addition of AT. Where to put it? Probably in the standard somewhere...

Rex

Rex Lint, Consultant
Chair, Section 508 Working Group
Information Technology Association of America
PH: 603-860-7651, FAX: 603-882-6612


-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1:14 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'Rex Lint'; 'TEITAC self contained/closed products
subcommittee'
Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with closed,self-contained
products

This is a good discussion.

In Diane's example, the computers are closed by policy. So some of them
have AT installed on them (built into them before they are closed). Thus
they would meet 'closed system' access requirements because they met the
built in accessibility (by added AT) before they were closed. Or rather, in
their "closed state" they meet all the closed product guidelines.


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

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Nov 14 2006 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products

Not sure I understand Rex. To meet closed system access they would need to
(with their installed AT) be accessible.

I can understand the "not meeting OS" because they are closed and the AT
part of OS access wouldn't be needed (since it couldn't be accessed anyway).
But the other OS parts would be met because of their closed system
counterparts. And if it browsed web content - wouldn't it need to render
it accessibly to be called accessible?

Or were you saying something else?


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rex Lint [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:21 PM
> To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC self
> contained/closed products subcommittee'
> Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
> "Or rather, in their "closed state" they meet all the closed
> product guidelines." {Gregg Vanderheiden]
>
> ...And they might NOT meet the provisions for computer
> operating system/applications nor allow conformant web pages
> to be accessible.
>
> Perhaps we draft an observation that policy can affect
> accessibility as much as technical provisions do, and that
> policy should be adjusted to allow for addition of AT. Where
> to put it? Probably in the standard somewhere...
>
> Rex
>
> Rex Lint, Consultant
> Chair, Section 508 Working Group
> Information Technology Association of America
> PH: 603-860-7651, FAX: 603-882-6612
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1:14 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'Rex Lint'; 'TEITAC self
> contained/closed products subcommittee'
> Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
> This is a good discussion.
>
> In Diane's example, the computers are closed by policy. So
> some of them
> have AT installed on them (built into them before they are
> closed). Thus they would meet 'closed system' access
> requirements because they met the built in accessibility (by
> added AT) before they were closed. Or rather, in their
> "closed state" they meet all the closed product guidelines.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>

From: Rex Lint
Date: Tue, Nov 14 2006 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products

Indeed, the very first provision for the closed products says,
1194.25 (a) "Self contained products shall be usable by people with
disabilities without requiring an end-user to attach assistive technology to
the product. Personal headsets for private listening are not assistive
technology."

So by "closing" a PC based product with a policy, there is then a different
set of provisions to satisfy than if it were not closed by a policy. I
daresay that the provisions on a closed system are significantly different
than those for the other product classes. And if your suggestion that, " To
meet closed system access they would need to (with their installed AT) be
accessible" (from the provision above), I submit, is open to interpretation:
"be usable by people with disabilities" is not defined in the standard, so
far as I can tell. And all the specific technical requirements for s/w and
o/s and web pages don't apply, only the "closed product" provisions do.

I suspect you have a different interpretation...?

Rex

Rex Lint, Consultant
Chair, Section 508 Working Group
Information Technology Association of America
PH: 603-860-7651, FAX: 603-882-6612


-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1:32 PM
To: 'Rex Lint'; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC self contained/closed products
subcommittee'
Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with closed,self-contained
products

Not sure I understand Rex. To meet closed system access they would need to
(with their installed AT) be accessible.

I can understand the "not meeting OS" because they are closed and the AT
part of OS access wouldn't be needed (since it couldn't be accessed anyway).
But the other OS parts would be met because of their closed system
counterparts. And if it browsed web content - wouldn't it need to render
it accessibly to be called accessible?

Or were you saying something else?


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rex Lint [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:21 PM
> To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC self
> contained/closed products subcommittee'
> Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
> "Or rather, in their "closed state" they meet all the closed
> product guidelines." {Gregg Vanderheiden]
>
> ...And they might NOT meet the provisions for computer
> operating system/applications nor allow conformant web pages
> to be accessible.
>
> Perhaps we draft an observation that policy can affect
> accessibility as much as technical provisions do, and that
> policy should be adjusted to allow for addition of AT. Where
> to put it? Probably in the standard somewhere...
>
> Rex
>
> Rex Lint, Consultant
> Chair, Section 508 Working Group
> Information Technology Association of America
> PH: 603-860-7651, FAX: 603-882-6612
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1:14 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'Rex Lint'; 'TEITAC self
> contained/closed products subcommittee'
> Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
> This is a good discussion.
>
> In Diane's example, the computers are closed by policy. So
> some of them
> have AT installed on them (built into them before they are
> closed). Thus they would meet 'closed system' access
> requirements because they met the built in accessibility (by
> added AT) before they were closed. Or rather, in their
> "closed state" they meet all the closed product guidelines.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Nov 14 2006 6:40 PM
Subject: Re: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products

Hi Rex

I'm not sure I follow.

The provision from the 508 standard reads.

"(a) Self contained products shall be usable by people with disabilities
without requiring an end-user to attach assistive technology to the product.
Personal headsets for private listening are not assistive technology."

Are saying that, since " usable by people with disabilities" isn't defined
that it somehow not in effect? Or are you saying something else? Couldn't
follow that part Can you explain what you mean by that?

RE - other provisions. - I didn't say that all of the other provisions
didn't hold. Just that the ones that deal with installed AT compatibility
wouldn't apply since provision (a) (above) says that it must be usable
without AT (and you can't install the AT). However you would still have to
be compatible with other (non-installed) AT. For example prosthetics,
hearing aids, wheelchairs etc.).

I guess technically you could argue that all of the OS rules had to apply to
closed systems as well. But that seems to make it harder for industry
without any benefit to users. So I don't think anyone would press for that.
Now - as pointed out, AT compatibility could help in making some 'closed'
products accessible by allowing one to install AT in the closed product
before you close it - thus making it accessible.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rex Lint [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 3:21 PM
> To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC self
> contained/closed products subcommittee'
> Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
> Indeed, the very first provision for the closed products says,
> 1194.25 (a) "Self contained products shall be usable by
> people with disabilities without requiring an end-user to
> attach assistive technology to the product. Personal headsets
> for private listening are not assistive technology."
>
> So by "closing" a PC based product with a policy, there is
> then a different set of provisions to satisfy than if it were
> not closed by a policy. I daresay that the provisions on a
> closed system are significantly different than those for the
> other product classes. And if your suggestion that, " To
> meet closed system access they would need to (with their
> installed AT) be accessible" (from the provision above), I
> submit, is open to interpretation:
> "be usable by people with disabilities" is not defined in the
> standard, so far as I can tell. And all the specific
> technical requirements for s/w and o/s and web pages don't
> apply, only the "closed product" provisions do.
>
> I suspect you have a different interpretation...?
>
> Rex
>
> Rex Lint, Consultant
> Chair, Section 508 Working Group
> Information Technology Association of America
> PH: 603-860-7651, FAX: 603-882-6612
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1:32 PM
> To: 'Rex Lint'; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC self
> contained/closed products subcommittee'
> Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
> Not sure I understand Rex. To meet closed system access
> they would need to
> (with their installed AT) be accessible.
>
> I can understand the "not meeting OS" because they are closed
> and the AT part of OS access wouldn't be needed (since it
> couldn't be accessed anyway).
> But the other OS parts would be met because of their closed system
> counterparts. And if it browsed web content - wouldn't it
> need to render
> it accessibly to be called accessible?
>
> Or were you saying something else?
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rex Lint [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 12:21 PM
> > To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC self
> > contained/closed products subcommittee'
> > Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> > closed,self-contained products
> >
> > "Or rather, in their "closed state" they meet all the
> closed product
> > guidelines." {Gregg Vanderheiden]
> >
> > ...And they might NOT meet the provisions for computer operating
> > system/applications nor allow conformant web pages to be accessible.
> >
> > Perhaps we draft an observation that policy can affect
> accessibility
> > as much as technical provisions do, and that policy should
> be adjusted
> > to allow for addition of AT. Where to put it? Probably in the
> > standard somewhere...
> >
> > Rex
> >
> > Rex Lint, Consultant
> > Chair, Section 508 Working Group
> > Information Technology Association of America
> > PH: 603-860-7651, FAX: 603-882-6612
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 1:14 PM
> > To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'Rex Lint'; 'TEITAC self contained/closed
> > products subcommittee'
> > Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> > closed,self-contained products
> >
> > This is a good discussion.
> >
> > In Diane's example, the computers are closed by policy. So
> > some of them
> > have AT installed on them (built into them before they are
> closed).
> > Thus they would meet 'closed system' access requirements
> because they
> > met the built in accessibility (by added AT) before they
> were closed.
> > Or rather, in their "closed state" they meet all the closed product
> > guidelines.
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

From: Takemura, Michael (HP Accessibility)
Date: Tue, Nov 14 2006 11:40 PM
Subject: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products

Sorry for jumping into this late, but have been tied up w/ IDEAS and
travel.

At the TETIAC meeting last week in D.C., I mentioned that we need to be
careful
how these standards are applied to products that are 'closed' due to a
Federal Agency policy.
IT manufacturers have no control over how a product is going to be used,
nor what environment
it is going to be used. Desktop computers may be used on a desktop,
and they may be used
as part of a KIOSK that is a "closed" product 'solution'. The
integrator or agency would
need to decide to apply the closed/self-contained standards to that
'solution' - but I can't
imagine that all desktop computers are considered closed.

Am I missing the point ?

Michael

Michael Takemura
Director, HP Accessibility Program Office
http://www.hp.com/accessibility
Phone: 281 518-0739 (Central Time CDT/CST)
Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:53 AM
To: 'Rex Lint'; 'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee';
'Gregg Vanderheiden'
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
closed,self-contained products

No, my basic point is that there are vastly different access
expectations related to products closed by policy vs. the more
traditional group of closed products (again voting machines). Trying to
write technical standards for a group of products this diverse will be
extremely difficult.
Many closed by policy product examples are public use computer stations.
If a public employment center has a computer lab that individuals can
use to create a resume, apply on-line for jobs, etc. the policy may be
that the computers are closed in that the public cannot load their own
AT. However, that doesn't mean that individual stations within the lab
are not loaded with AT with some stations designed to provide adaptive
output and others adaptive input options. If instead each station must
meet a set of built-in access standards, the robustness of the access
will not likely be equal to that provided by the AT on individual
stations.

Products like voting machines or specific use kiosks tend to have a much
narrower purpose/focus that makes it a little easier to determine where
to draw the line on what should be built in access. That will be
exceedingly difficult to do with computer stations closed by policy.

Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
Missouri Assistive Technology
816/350-5280 (direct voice)
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.at.mo.gov


-----Original Message-----
From: Rex Lint [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:10 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC self contained/closed products
subcommittee'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'
Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
closed,self-contained products


Diane,

Are you inferring that a PC, if it's "closed by policy," needs MORE
ACCESSIBILITY than a "closed, self-contained product"? I assume that
you're thinking that the level of acc'y specified for closed products is
insufficient. If that's the case, let's change the level of acc'y for
those.

Is it the case, in your mind, that if a vendor chooses a PC as the basis
of a product that is closed, they incur a heavier burden to make it more
accessible than had they built it from discrete logic? That would seem
to be steering vendors in directions that might be, overall, not so
good.

Rex

Rex Lint, Consultant
Chair, Section 508 Working Group
Information Technology Association of America
PH: 603-860-7651, FAX: 603-882-6612


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:23 AM
To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; 'TEITAC self contained/closed products
subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
closed,self-contained products

So to be 508 "conformant" each computer system closed by policy would
need to have scanning software to allow for switch access? Would any
kind of built-in screen enlargement be OK, or would the magification
need to meet a specific magnification standard as the VVSG requires?

Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
Missouri Assistive Technology
816/350-5280 (direct voice)
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.at.mo.gov


-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:57 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC self contained/closed products
subcommittee'
Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
closed,self-contained products


Yes. I would say that is correct. If a product is closed (e.g. a
kiosk) or otherwise closed by policy, the only way that people with
disabilities can access and use it is if the accessibility is built in.
This does not need
to require AT. Almost all technologies from computers to phones have
speech capability. Voicing can just be part of the software package
used
on the closed product (e.g. kiosk or card catalog etc.).

The alternative is that people with disabilities cannot use them and
cannot make them accessible - which is the opposite of the goal of 508.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
> Golden
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:17 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.
>
>
>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Nov 15 2006 12:00 AM
Subject: Re: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products

It would need to meet whatever guidelines closed products need to meet.

To my knowledge we have not required closed products to have scanning input.


It is an interesting question what type of access we want to require of
closed systems. It just says that the product needs to be usable by the
different disabilities .31 and have tactile controls etc. Hmmmm.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Diane Golden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 10:23 AM
> To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; 'TEITAC self contained/closed
> products subcommittee'
> Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
> So to be 508 "conformant" each computer system closed by
> policy would need to have scanning software to allow for
> switch access? Would any kind of built-in screen enlargement
> be OK, or would the magification need to meet a specific
> magnification standard as the VVSG requires?
>
> Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
> Missouri Assistive Technology
> 816/350-5280 (direct voice)
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> www.at.mo.gov
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:57 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC self contained/closed
> products subcommittee'
> Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
>
> Yes. I would say that is correct. If a product is closed
> (e.g. a kiosk) or otherwise closed by policy, the only way
> that people with disabilities can access and use it is if the
> accessibility is built in. This does not need
> to require AT. Almost all technologies from computers to phones have
> speech capability. Voicing can just be part of the software
> package used
> on the closed product (e.g. kiosk or card catalog etc.).
>
> The alternative is that people with disabilities cannot use
> them and cannot make them accessible - which is the opposite
> of the goal of 508.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
> > Golden
> > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:17 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.
> >
> >
> >

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Nov 15 2006 12:05 AM
Subject: Re: Additional issues with closed,self-contained products

My take on it would be as follows:

- It wouldn't be the manufacturers problem since what they sell is open.

- But the system integrator would have to follow closed product rules if
they were selling a closed product.

- If it was just the agency that closed it (and they had not specified that
it would be closed as part of the package) then it would be the agency that
would have to make sure they were accessible (by adding any needed features
) before they closed them.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Takemura, Michael (HP Accessibility)
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:38 AM
> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee; Rex
> Lint; Gregg Vanderheiden; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with closed,
> self-contained products
>
> Sorry for jumping into this late, but have been tied up w/
> IDEAS and travel.
>
> At the TETIAC meeting last week in D.C., I mentioned that we
> need to be careful how these standards are applied to
> products that are 'closed' due to a Federal Agency policy.
> IT manufacturers have no control over how a product is going
> to be used, nor what environment
> it is going to be used. Desktop computers may be used on a desktop,
> and they may be used
> as part of a KIOSK that is a "closed" product 'solution'. The
> integrator or agency would
> need to decide to apply the closed/self-contained standards
> to that 'solution' - but I can't
> imagine that all desktop computers are considered closed.
>
> Am I missing the point ?
>
> Michael
>
> Michael Takemura
> Director, HP Accessibility Program Office
> http://www.hp.com/accessibility
> Phone: 281 518-0739 (Central Time CDT/CST)
> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:53 AM
> To: 'Rex Lint'; 'TEITAC self contained/closed products
> subcommittee'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
> No, my basic point is that there are vastly different access
> expectations related to products closed by policy vs. the
> more traditional group of closed products (again voting
> machines). Trying to write technical standards for a group
> of products this diverse will be extremely difficult.
> Many closed by policy product examples are public use
> computer stations.
> If a public employment center has a computer lab that
> individuals can use to create a resume, apply on-line for
> jobs, etc. the policy may be that the computers are closed in
> that the public cannot load their own AT. However, that
> doesn't mean that individual stations within the lab are not
> loaded with AT with some stations designed to provide
> adaptive output and others adaptive input options. If
> instead each station must meet a set of built-in access
> standards, the robustness of the access will not likely be
> equal to that provided by the AT on individual stations.
>
> Products like voting machines or specific use kiosks tend to
> have a much narrower purpose/focus that makes it a little
> easier to determine where to draw the line on what should be
> built in access. That will be exceedingly difficult to do
> with computer stations closed by policy.
>
> Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
> Missouri Assistive Technology
> 816/350-5280 (direct voice)
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> www.at.mo.gov
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rex Lint [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:10 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC self contained/closed
> products subcommittee'; 'Gregg Vanderheiden'
> Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
>
> Diane,
>
> Are you inferring that a PC, if it's "closed by policy,"
> needs MORE ACCESSIBILITY than a "closed, self-contained
> product"? I assume that you're thinking that the level of
> acc'y specified for closed products is insufficient. If
> that's the case, let's change the level of acc'y for those.
>
> Is it the case, in your mind, that if a vendor chooses a PC
> as the basis of a product that is closed, they incur a
> heavier burden to make it more accessible than had they built
> it from discrete logic? That would seem to be steering
> vendors in directions that might be, overall, not so good.
>
> Rex
>
> Rex Lint, Consultant
> Chair, Section 508 Working Group
> Information Technology Association of America
> PH: 603-860-7651, FAX: 603-882-6612
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 11:23 AM
> To: 'Gregg Vanderheiden'; 'TEITAC self contained/closed
> products subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
> So to be 508 "conformant" each computer system closed by
> policy would need to have scanning software to allow for
> switch access? Would any kind of built-in screen enlargement
> be OK, or would the magification need to meet a specific
> magnification standard as the VVSG requires?
>
> Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
> Missouri Assistive Technology
> 816/350-5280 (direct voice)
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> www.at.mo.gov
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 9:57 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC self contained/closed
> products subcommittee'
> Subject: RE: [teitac-closed] Additional issues with
> closed,self-contained products
>
>
> Yes. I would say that is correct. If a product is closed (e.g. a
> kiosk) or otherwise closed by policy, the only way that
> people with disabilities can access and use it is if the
> accessibility is built in.
> This does not need
> to require AT. Almost all technologies from computers to phones have
> speech capability. Voicing can just be part of the software package
> used
> on the closed product (e.g. kiosk or card catalog etc.).
>
> The alternative is that people with disabilities cannot use
> them and cannot make them accessible - which is the opposite
> of the goal of 508.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
> > Golden
> > Sent: Monday, November 13, 2006 12:17 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.
> >
> >
> >