Thread Subject: Combined Hardware Subcommittee Proposal

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Randy Marsden (Home)
Date: Fri, Dec 15 2006 8:20 AM
Subject: Combined Hardware Subcommittee Proposal

Hello:

BACKGROUND
I was tasked with writing a proposal for the idea of combining some of the
TEITAC sub-committees into one called ³Hardware². As part of that process,
I gathered feedback from sub-committee members on the weekly teleconference
meetings for both the Desktops & Portables subcommittee as well as the
Closed and Self-contained subcommittee. This proposal is a DRAFT, shared
between the listserves of those two subcommittees. Once it is vetted
between those two subcommittees, it will be submitted to the Co-chairs of
the TEITAC.

PROPOSAL
That the two sub-committees presently titled ³Closed and Self-Contained² and
³Desktops and Portables² be combined into one sub-committee titled ³Hardware
and Self-Contained². Further, that any hardware-specific issues raised in
Telecom, General, or other sub-committees be assigned to the newly formed
Hardware sub-committee.

RATIONALE
The following is a list of some of the reasons why a combination of the two
subcommittees is deemed necessary:

1. There are many overlapping issues that relate to hardware in both
subcommittees
2. There is evidence suggesting that ³Closed² is a generic description of an
attribute of E&IT, rather than a category of product.
3. As technology advances, and in particular convergence occurs between
computers, portable devices, and telecom, the lines are blurring between
what is considered a ³desktop and portable² computer and a ³self-containted
product². Today, even smaller portable devices could be considered
³computers² in that they have industry standard hardware interfaces, many
allow 3rd-party software to be loaded, and they run well-developed operating
systems.
4. It is difficult to do meaningful work within the subcommittees because
there is confusion over which subcommittee works on which issues.

CONCLUSION
The subcommittees should be combined.

From: Randy Marsden
Date: Fri, Dec 15 2006 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: Combined Hardware Subcommittee Proposal

Proposed agenda:

1. Combined Subcommittee proposal discussion
2. A look at the 508 Regs ­ mapping themes to existing subparts
3. BIOS discussion
4. Other

-Randy

From: David Wysocki
Date: Fri, Dec 15 2006 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Combined Hardware Subcommittee Proposal (Keep"No AT" Agenda Item from Last Week)

Subcommittee - Propose to keep in the agenda the primary discussion item
from last week - "What if AT Isn't Available". I think we raised many
good questions and concerns but nothing that I recall as task items(s)
or resolutions. If we aren't able to include it today could we table it
to include for the next following meeting? - David



David J. Wysocki, MS, OTR, ATP

Assistant Vice President,

Workforce Development / Assistive Technology

Easter Seals National Office

230 W. Monroe St., Suite 1800

Chicago, IL 60606

Direct Line: 312-551-7175

Receptionist: 312-726-6200

Fax: 312-726-1494

TTY: 312-726-4258

Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >



Be an angel of change. You can change the lives of people with
disabilities.

Earn your wings at www.easterseals.com <http://www.easterseals.com/>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Dec 15 2006 10:55 PM
Subject: Re: Combined Hardware Subcommittee Proposal

I think that this is logical except that it presumes that only desktops and
notebooks can be closed.



Closed applies to all technologies. Combining it with DT and NB might
cause it to be narrowly thought about.


Purely software systems can be closed. And phones certainly can be both
open and closed. So it shifts the problem to combining with that as well.



Closed is an attribute - not a category of products. So we can't sort it
out. If DTandNB takes on the closed issue it would have to also take on
closed software. That may be ok. It just should not be taken that
'closed' only applies to PCs.





I think all of the groups need to be thinking about 'closed'. Maybe a
better way to think about it is that 'closed' be disbanded and that ALL
groups take on the topic as a THEME as it would apply to their areas.




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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randy Marsden
(Home)
Sent: Friday, December 15, 2006 9:11 AM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee; TEITAC self
contained/closed products subcommittee
Subject: [teitac-hardware] Combined Hardware Subcommittee Proposal

Hello:

BACKGROUND
I was tasked with writing a proposal for the idea of combining some of the
TEITAC sub-committees into one called "Hardware". As part of that process,
I gathered feedback from sub-committee members on the weekly teleconference
meetings for both the Desktops & Portables subcommittee as well as the
Closed and Self-contained subcommittee. This proposal is a DRAFT, shared
between the listserves of those two subcommittees. Once it is vetted
between those two subcommittees, it will be submitted to the Co-chairs of
the TEITAC.

PROPOSAL
That the two sub-committees presently titled "Closed and Self-Contained" and
"Desktops and Portables" be combined into one sub-committee titled "Hardware
and Self-Contained". Further, that any hardware-specific issues raised in
Telecom, General, or other sub-committees be assigned to the newly formed
Hardware sub-committee.

RATIONALE
The following is a list of some of the reasons why a combination of the two
subcommittees is deemed necessary:

1. There are many overlapping issues that relate to hardware in both
subcommittees
2. There is evidence suggesting that "Closed" is a generic description
of an attribute of E&IT, rather than a category of product.
3. As technology advances, and in particular convergence occurs between
computers, portable devices, and telecom, the lines are blurring between
what is considered a "desktop and portable" computer and a "self-containted
product". Today, even smaller portable devices could be considered
"computers" in that they have industry standard hardware interfaces, many
allow 3rd-party software to be loaded, and they run well-developed operating
systems.
4. It is difficult to do meaningful work within the subcommittees
because there is confusion over which subcommittee works on which issues.


CONCLUSION
The subcommittees should be combined.

From: Randy Marsden (Home)
Date: Fri, Dec 15 2006 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: Combined Hardware Subcommittee Proposal

> My comments below. (Randy)
>
>
>
> Closed is an attribute ­ not a category of products. So we can't sort it out.
> If DTandNB takes on the closed issue it would have to also take on closed
> software. That may be ok. It just should not be taken that ?closed¹ only
> applies to PCs.
>
> True, but I don¹t agree that DT and NB should take on closed software. As per
> your next comment below, that should be handled by Software and Web. Note
> also that we are proposing to change the name of the Desktops and Portables
> subcommittee to ³Hardware and Self-Contained², to make it explicit that we are
> no longer only talking about PC¹s.
>
>
>
>
> I think all of the groups need to be thinking about ?closed¹. Maybe a better
> way to think about it is that ?closed¹ be disbanded and that ALL groups take
> on the topic as a THEME as it would apply to their areas.
>
> Agreed. There is a broader implication in what we are proposing here.
> Section 508 explicitly includes a section (§1194.25 ) for ³Self-contained,
> closed products². By ³retiring² that subcommittee, are we also saying we want
> to retire that part of 508? There is a fair bit of content in that section
> that we wouldn¹t want to lose. Can we adequately incorporate that content in
> the other sub-sections?
>
> -Randy Marsden
> ATIA
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>>

From: Robert_Nerhood@Dell.com
Date: Mon, Dec 18 2006 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: Combined Hardware Subcommittee Proposal

Continuing the discussion on the combination proposal. Comments from
the DT/NB con-call.

1 - a solid definition of what content will be covered needs to be
further defined. For example, if you look at ll94.26, the DT/NB section
is primarily focused on physical or sensory interaction with the
product. Would that be the focus of this SC if they are merged. I
agree with Randy that Software should not be addressed here.

2 - define the limits of our scope to be general non-application
specific interactions or characteristics. For example, this SC would
look at basic control interactions, but would not address a system
specific characteristics such as a how a TV tuner captions.

3 - we have to be very careful of HW scope creep

If you were on the call and I missed something, please continue it in
the discussion.

Thanks,

Rob


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

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Dec 18 2006 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: Combined Hardware Subcommittee Proposal

Thanks Randy



This whole topic raises some interesting questions that we didn?t address in
our first meetings.



We started out forming the groups strictly along 508 guidelines categories.
Then combined two. Then expanded on. Now another two. And I don't think
there is much rhyme or reason to what we have now.



- By retiring closed products ? I didn?t mean dropping those parts
or dropping the task of figuring out if these provisions were the correct
ones or enough provisions, etc. All that still need to be done. I just
meant that it might be better for the topic to be a shared one. ? with each
group seeing how it related to their work, since ?openness? vs ?closedness?
was a characteristic of all products today.



- RE renaming your group hardware. This seems ok on the surface
but I think we need to look at the whole picture there too. Phones are all
hardware so are you going to take on the telecom hardware issues? And where
are PDAs? PDAs are more similar to phones than to desktops and laptops
(from hardware standpoint). You used to be desktop and laptop.



- Should we be dividing into functional categories? (we are headed
that way)

o Hardware

o Software

o Network ? voice

o Network ? service

o General or indeterminate (could be done in hardware or software)



- Or should we be doing it like the last EITAAC recommended

o General guidelines (that should apply to all E&IT)

* (e.g. ?Do not rely on color alone?)

o Specific guidelines where things shouldn?t apply overall.





Has my head spinning but I don't think we can solve it with individual
groups. We may need to thing about the whole organization structure at the
next TEITAC meeting. It seems like the groups might need to be
reformulated to match whatever we think this might look like at the end.
Right now it look neither like the old 508 or old 255 and not like
anything we want to end up with either. Also there is a lot of overlap.




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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randy Marsden
(Home)
Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 12:12 AM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee; 'TEITAC self
contained/closed products subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Combined Hardware Subcommittee Proposal

My comments below. (Randy)



Closed is an attribute ? not a category of products. So we can't sort it
out. If DTandNB takes on the closed issue it would have to also take on
closed software. That may be ok. It just should not be taken that
?closed? only applies to PCs.

True, but I don?t agree that DT and NB should take on closed software. As
per your next comment below, that should be handled by Software and Web.
Note also that we are proposing to change the name of the Desktops and
Portables subcommittee to ?Hardware and Self-Contained?, to make it explicit
that we are no longer only talking about PC?s.




I think all of the groups need to be thinking about ?closed?. Maybe a
better way to think about it is that ?closed? be disbanded and that ALL
groups take on the topic as a THEME as it would apply to their areas.

Agreed. There is a broader implication in what we are proposing here.
Section 508 explicitly includes a section (§1194.25 ) for ?Self-contained,
closed products?. By ?retiring? that subcommittee, are we also saying we
want to retire that part of 508? There is a fair bit of content in that
section that we wouldn?t want to lose. Can we adequately incorporate that
content in the other sub-sections?

-Randy Marsden
ATIA




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