Thread Subject: Re: AT/IT interoperability middle-ground

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Thu, Oct 25 2007 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: AT/IT interoperability middle-ground

All:

Just a follow up from the Tuesday plenary regarding AT/IT
interoperability.

Peter Korn and Gregg Vanderheiden have expressed the two perspectives on
this topic well. One perspective is that product manufacturers can not
determine if their product in fact does "work" with AT as a whole due to
resource limitations, changes to AT over time, and other well thought
through reasons. Gregg points out that, regardless of this problem, the
underlying objective is that IT products that need AT to function for
people with disabilities, do in fact work with AT, as a general rule.

As someone from neither industry or academia, I think there is middle
ground here. We discussed this Tuesday, but due to some unusual
circumstances captioning was cut off during this discussion. Let me
propose ideas to bring folks closer to a middle ground possibly.

Functional performance criteria changed to drop the "or support for AT"
portion, and just leave it as works for people with X disability.
Subsequently include requirement that Section 508 compliance
representation for a product must be provided to a potential purchaser
along with information the vendor has describing the compatibility of
the product with assistive technologies. This could be included in
either the information/documentation/support section, or along with
functional performance criteria. We could also possibly include a
specific requirement that products work with at least one AT if AT is
required for persons with each of the disabilities represented in the
FPC(s). At the end of the day, if a product meets technical
specifications here, but no AT exists, many feel it should not be
considered compliant. The burden may fall on the vendor at that point
to either recruit AT to be developed, or develop their own to fill a gap
in the market.

I think my point is that neither side is "wrong" here, but there is
middle ground between these two perspectives.







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

From: Peter Korn
Date: Fri, Oct 26 2007 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: AT/IT interoperability middle-ground

Hi Allen,

The changes you are suggesting - including removing "or support from AT"
- are really quite sweeping - they don't feel like a middle ground to me
at all.

Removing "or support for AT" essentially forces the agency to obtain a
complete accessible solution in their single acquisition. And if
agencies remain true to the path they have followed before, they will
shift that burden entirely onto E&IT vendors (who will then have to
ensure that there exists a bundle of products together that is - and
remains - accessible). You are still requiring that E&IT be responsible
for something they presently don't control.


I'd like to take a different tack in this discussion. Let's do a
thought experiment - if E&IT vendors were made responsible for
delivering AT, what would happen? Some vendors wouldn't bid - they
can't be responsible for AT and won't try. Some vendors would partner
with AT companies - essentially picking winners (we'll standardize on
the Yoyodyne screen reader; if agencies don't want to use that, so what
- these are the two that work together). Some vendors might purchase AT
companies outright, or make their own (and thereby perhaps put existing
AT vendors out of business). And what happens if Big_Corporation has
purchased Yoyodyne screen reader? Would Big_Corporation have any
incentive to build into Yoyodyne support Competitor_Corporation's
products? In fact, it would have a strong incentive to ensure that
Yoyodyne didn't work well with Competitor_Corporation's products (or at
least, as well). And so instead of having a few screen readers that
worked broadly with lots of products, we might have many, and most of
them won't work well with products not owned by the same company (and
none with eachother - there is nothing in 508 that says that AT products
need to work with eachother, and especially not two AT products that
perform the same function).

In essence, I think we would be setting ourselves up for potential
anti-trust problems down the road; and also jeopardizing the existing AT
industry.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.


> All:
>
> Just a follow up from the Tuesday plenary regarding AT/IT
> interoperability.
>
> Peter Korn and Gregg Vanderheiden have expressed the two perspectives on
> this topic well. One perspective is that product manufacturers can not
> determine if their product in fact does "work" with AT as a whole due to
> resource limitations, changes to AT over time, and other well thought
> through reasons. Gregg points out that, regardless of this problem, the
> underlying objective is that IT products that need AT to function for
> people with disabilities, do in fact work with AT, as a general rule.
>
> As someone from neither industry or academia, I think there is middle
> ground here. We discussed this Tuesday, but due to some unusual
> circumstances captioning was cut off during this discussion. Let me
> propose ideas to bring folks closer to a middle ground possibly.
>
> Functional performance criteria changed to drop the "or support for AT"
> portion, and just leave it as works for people with X disability.
> Subsequently include requirement that Section 508 compliance
> representation for a product must be provided to a potential purchaser
> along with information the vendor has describing the compatibility of
> the product with assistive technologies. This could be included in
> either the information/documentation/support section, or along with
> functional performance criteria. We could also possibly include a
> specific requirement that products work with at least one AT if AT is
> required for persons with each of the disabilities represented in the
> FPC(s). At the end of the day, if a product meets technical
> specifications here, but no AT exists, many feel it should not be
> considered compliant. The burden may fall on the vendor at that point
> to either recruit AT to be developed, or develop their own to fill a gap
> in the market.
>
> I think my point is that neither side is "wrong" here, but there is
> middle ground between these two perspectives.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>