Thread Subject: Defining Closed

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Randy Marsden
Date: Wed, Nov 22 2006 2:15 PM
Subject: Defining Closed

There is value in defining all three categories of ³Closed Products²:
1. ³Technically closed² (ie. Not open to AT)
2. ³Closed by Policy², and
3. ³Open to AT, but no AT exists².

If a product is in the latter category, then a solution could be technically
produced. If AT doesn¹t exist today, yet the mainstream manufacturer did
everything they needed to do in order to open up their product to AT, then
at least half the battle is won. After that, market forces should lead AT
manufacturers to provide the solution. (I know that¹s a ³perfect world²
scenario, but AT manufacturers are in the business of providing AT
solutions, and if enough demand exists for a solution, they will make it).

The real question then becomes ³what if the market forces (or other factors)
are not enough to entice AT vendors to create a solution?². In this case,
does the burden of accessibility rest on the original mainstream
manufacturer? In other words, are they required to create the AT themselves
(or build in accessibility)? An example of that very thing happening is the
Voice Over screen reader made by Apple for Mac OSX.

However, if a mainstream product is technically closed to AT (and doesn¹t
have built-in accessibility of its own), then there is no hope of making it
accessible ­ market forces or not. It would be helpful to know which
product fits into which category.

-Randy Marsden, ATIA

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Nov 22 2006 7:25 PM
Subject: Re: Defining Closed

I think these are good distinctions.



Now the question is (are?)

- would the rules be any different for the three categories. None
of the three are accessible unless they are directly accessible without AT.


- There may be hope for #2 or #3.

- You could have a rule against #2 (but if for some reason you can't
forbid #2 then it should be treated the same as #1. No?).

- And is it ok to buy inaccessible things if they could be made
accessible in the future - but they aren't today?

- Would there need to be some guarantee that they ever would be made
accessible?



Interesting to separate the theoretical from the pragmatic.


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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randy Marsden
Sent: Wednesday, November 22, 2006 3:13 PM
To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
Subject: [teitac-closed] Defining Closed

There is value in defining all three categories of "Closed Products":

1. "Technically closed" (ie. Not open to AT)
2. "Closed by Policy", and
3. "Open to AT, but no AT exists".


If a product is in the latter category, then a solution could be technically
produced. If AT doesn't exist today, yet the mainstream manufacturer did
everything they needed to do in order to open up their product to AT, then
at least half the battle is won. After that, market forces should lead AT
manufacturers to provide the solution. (I know that's a "perfect world"
scenario, but AT manufacturers are in the business of providing AT
solutions, and if enough demand exists for a solution, they will make it).

The real question then becomes "what if the market forces (or other factors)
are not enough to entice AT vendors to create a solution?". In this case,
does the burden of accessibility rest on the original mainstream
manufacturer? In other words, are they required to create the AT themselves
(or build in accessibility)? An example of that very thing happening is the
Voice Over screen reader made by Apple for Mac OSX.

However, if a mainstream product is technically closed to AT (and doesn't
have built-in accessibility of its own), then there is no hope of making it
accessible - market forces or not. It would be helpful to know which
product fits into which category.

-Randy Marsden, ATIA