Thread Subject: Re: Combined HardwareSubcommittee Proposal

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Dec 15 2006 11:00 PM
Subject: Re: Combined HardwareSubcommittee 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 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: Combined HardwareSubcommittee 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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Dec 18 2006 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Combined HardwareSubcommittee 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.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Dec 18 2006 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: Combined HardwareSubcommittee 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.

From: Debbie Cook
Date: Mon, Dec 18 2006 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: Combined HardwareSubcommitteeProposal

I've weighed in on this at the self-contained call but not on these lists.
While I think that "closed" is potentially a subdivision of all
topics--hardwre, software and telecomm in particular, it must be addressed
distinctly. If I am procuring a product and it contains phone hardware for
example, and it's software features include phone, browser, calendaring,
text messaging, and whatever else, but there is either no way to add AT to
it or there is no AT for some or all of the functions, the product is in
effect closed. We've made some progress on the phone parts of these products
for some people, and less on some other parts. And there are a host of
products which now do include video (indicating a need for captioning). What
I see happening in software is that they're thinking pretty litterally about
software running on a PC or close approximation. And I read in this thred
that people would propose not to discuss things like captioning in the
combined PC and closed group. Well, essentially we spend our energy dividing
the territory and inadvertently avoiding the real issue which is that there
are an increasing host of products which by their design and scope currently
do not lend themselves to accessibility. In these cases it's not necessarily
that the hardware is inaccessible, but rather the combined functions of the
product software and hardware along with the need for additional features
such as captioning.

I don't care where we address self-contained products, whether separtely or
together with hardware, but I'm concerned that the energy on territory would
be better spent on working out the solutions even if there is overlap, and
letting the final sort out in editing.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC self contained/closed products
subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Cc: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 8:13 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-hardware] Combined HardwareSubcommittee
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.








--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Randy Marsden (Home)
Date: Mon, Dec 18 2006 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: Combined HardwareSubcommittee Proposal

Debbie / All:

You¹re identified one of the exact reasons we want to combine. The world of
technology isn¹t divided as it was 5 years ago. The fact that a phone can
be a computer, which can be an MP3 player, which can be an electronic
calendar, which can be a browser, etc. is WHY we feel a need to combine.
We¹d like to get going doing meaningful work, but keep bumping up against
the question ³does that issue fall within our purview, or is some other
sub-committee going to handle it?². Take Smartphones, for example. Where
do we deal with the mechanical interfaces, the software interfaces, the
telecom interfaces? My opinion is they get dealt with in each of the
respective sub-committees: Hardware, Software, Telecom.

It would be nice to get the issue settled ­ one way or the other, so we can
start diving into the real work. The proposal is for the co-chairs to
consider and for them to ultimately make a decision.

-Randy
>
> From: "Debbie Cook" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Reply-To: "TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 08:33:47 -0800
> To: "TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware)
> subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Cc: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] [teitac-closed] Combined HardwareSubcommittee
> Proposal
>

> I've weighed in on this at the self-contained call but not on these lists.
> While I think that "closed" is potentially a subdivision of all
> topics--hardwre, software and telecomm in particular, it must be addressed
> distinctly. If I am procuring a product and it contains phone hardware for
> example, and it's software features include phone, browser, calendaring,
> text messaging, and whatever else, but there is either no way to add AT to
> it or there is no AT for some or all of the functions, the product is in
> effect closed. We've made some progress on the phone parts of these products
> for some people, and less on some other parts. And there are a host of
> products which now do include video (indicating a need for captioning). What
> I see happening in software is that they're thinking pretty litterally about
> software running on a PC or close approximation. And I read in this thred
> that people would propose not to discuss things like captioning in the
> combined PC and closed group. Well, essentially we spend our energy dividing
> the territory and inadvertently avoiding the real issue which is that there
> are an increasing host of products which by their design and scope currently
> do not lend themselves to accessibility. In these cases it's not necessarily
> that the hardware is inaccessible, but rather the combined functions of the
> product software and hardware along with the need for additional features
> such as captioning.
>
> I don't care where we address self-contained products, whether separtely or
> together with hardware, but I'm concerned that the energy on territory would
> be better spent on working out the solutions even if there is overlap, and
> letting the final sort out in editing.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC self contained/closed products
> subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Cc: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 8:13 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-hardware] Combined HardwareSubcommittee
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
>
>
>

From: Randy Marsden
Date: Mon, Dec 18 2006 6:15 PM
Subject: Re: Combined HardwareSubcommitteeProposal

A few more thoughts, after some in-person conversations today:

1. ³Self-Contained², and ³Closed² are not synonymous. A self-contained
product can still be accessible.
2. Many Self-Contained products do not fit comfortably into the same barrel
as computers (such as office equipment like copiers, fax machines, etc).
3. Re-emphasize: ³Closed² is not a category of product, but an attribute
that can describe a product in all of the categories (if it can¹t be
accessed by people with disabilities).
4. ³Hardware² seems to be too broad a category (but ³Desktops & Portables²
too specific). ³Computer Hardware² would nicely cover desktops, laptops,
portable handhelds, the computer portion of Smartphones, etc. It would
likely also cover the gadgets that have not been invented yet, but will be
between now and the next 508 refresh.

So, a possible revision to the ³merger² proposal would be the following:

Leave the current sub-committees in place, but tweak their names &
scopes as follows:

OLD NAME: ³Self-Contained & Closed Systems²
NEW NAME: ³Self-Contained²
SCOPE: E&IT products which are self-contained, meaning they are
not typically open to third-party software or hardware add-ons. They are
not ³computers² in the traditional sense.

OLD NAME: ³Desktops and Portables²
NEW NAME: ³Computer Hardware²
SCOPE: E&IT products that provide for third-party software
and/or hardware add-ons. For greater certainty, this includes, but is not
limited to: desktop computers, notebook computers, PDA¹s, handheld
computers, Tablet PC¹s, UMPC¹s, Smartphones, and Dataphones. In the case of
converged devices (such as Smartphones), the Computer Hardware subcommittee
would deal with the computer-specific aspects of the hardware only, and
leave the device-specific aspects of the hardware to the other respective
sub-committees (ie. Telecom, A/V, etc). In other words, Telecom still deals
with issues related to carriers, TTY¹s, etc. A/V still deals with TV tuner
issues, etc. Computer Hardware deals with computer industry-standard ports
and interfaces (like USB, etc).

So where do media players fit? (ie. iPod, Zune, etc). At the moment, I
would say they are Self-Contained.

Comments?

-Randy Marsden
ATIA

From: Randy Marsden (Home)
Date: Mon, Dec 18 2006 11:35 PM
Subject: Re: Combined HardwareSubcommittee Proposal

Interesting... I had never heard of it.

Based on my quick perusal, Rock Box is an open source ³Jukebox² project that
completely replaces the firmware of many MP3 players, including the iPod.
It can speak menu items, but only if they have been pre-recorded and stored
as MP3 sound files. (In other words, there isn¹t a TTS engine in Rock Box
itself). If you made up a name of a song, Rock Box would only be able to
read the song¹s title letter-by-letter. The entire software user interface
of the iPod is replaced by Rock Box. (No wonder Apple didn¹t mention it...).

It brings up an interesting point ­ we usually think of assistive technology
software as something that co-operates with the operating system to provide
accessibility. Here is an example where something completely replaces the
operating system, perhaps making the hardware more accessible. But does
that mean Apple can claim the iPod is accessible? Certainly the
Apple-produced software on an iPod still is not. The system is ³open²
because someone took a can opener and pried it open... (so to speak). In my
mind, the package as a whole (OEM hardware and software) is still
self-contained.

By the way, in Apple¹s defense, they have been very open to the idea of
external add-on components that would help make the iPod more accessible.

So, back to 508. Perhaps our definition should include something like this:

A device is considered ³Self-Contained² if the original manufacturer has not
provided a way for third-party software and hardware to be added to the
device.

-Randy
>
> From: David Poehlman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Reply-To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:54:12 -0500
> To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] [teitac-hardware] [teitac-closed] Combined
> HardwareSubcommittee Proposal
>

> Randy, allowed or ot, there is something called rock box which can
> be loaded onto an IPod too make it talk.
>
> On Dec 18, 2006, at 8:43 PM, Randy Marsden wrote:
>
> In the specific case of iPods, 3rd-party software is not allowed on
> them at
> this time. (And certainly not any AT that might change the user
> interface).
> This I know from personal interaction with Apple on the subject. I¹m
> not
> sure about Zune or other media players.
>
> But to the extent that devices like this become open and do allow 3rd-
> party
> software / hardware, then I agree they would be the same as other
> computer
> hardware.
>
> -Randy
>> >
>> > From: David Poehlman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> > Reply-To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
>> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> > Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 20:21:45 -0500
>> > To: "TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
>> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> > Cc: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
>> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> > Subject: Re: [teitac-general] [teitac-hardware] [teitac-closed]
>> > Combined
>> > HardwareSubcommittee Proposal
>> >
>
>> > IPods and other portables can be written to and from. In some cases,
>> > software can be loaded on them so are they really self contained any
>> > more than a computer with its software and operating system?
>> >
>
>

From: Debbie Cook
Date: Tue, Dec 19 2006 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: Combined HardwareSubcommittee Proposal

Randy wrote:
So, back to 508. Perhaps our definition should include something like this:

A device is considered ³Self-Contained² if the original manufacturer has not
provided a way for third-party software and hardware to be added to the
device.

No. This doesn't work. There may be a way, but if no AT vendor has developed
the necessary AT, the product is NOT accessible. The developer says: Sure
you're welcome to make my product accessible. The AT developer says: Gee I
don't have te development resource to do that. So it's possible, not
happening, and not accessible. A product is only accessible if that
accessibility is reasonably available and exists.

A similar example occurs when the dveloper says "it worked with X AT" but
doesn't work with any of the AT users actually have. Still not really
accessible except in theory.
-Randy

From: awoolley@cusa.canon.com
Date: Tue, Dec 19 2006 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: Combined HardwareSubcommitteeProposal

Thank you, Randy. I'd just like to add that an E&IT product may be
designed to meet the Section 508 standards by:

1) Providing the accessibility features through the device itself, or
2) Making it compatible with AT
3) or both #1 and #2

A product may even meet many of the 508 criteria using both methods,
perhaps depending on the impairment being addressed. For example, the
manufacturer could decide to make the height of a product adjustable to
meet certain 508 requirements AND partner with an AT company to create a
more specialized solution for users who are blind or have dexterity
impairments.

This is a good opportunity for both manufacturers and AT companies to play
a role. We should also encourage mainstream E&IT manufacturers to
incorporate accessibility features when it makes sense to do so.

The scenario presented in the previous e-mail is a difficult one, in which
it appears that neither the mainstream E&IT manufacturer nor the AT vendor
are motivated/able, for whatever reason, to make the product accessible.
Since Section 508 uses the "carrot" system to encourage accessible design,
I am not sure what the appropriate solution is (of course the assumption
is that this product is covered by 508 and not 255). Perhaps our
procurement experts can help us on this one.

Thank you,

Aubrey

Aubrey Woolley
Government Policy and Compliance Analyst
Government Marketing Division
Canon USA, Inc.
TEL: (703) 807-3158
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =




"Debbie Cook" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
12/19/2006 12:51 PM
Please respond to
TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To
"TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
cc

Subject
Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-general] [teitac-hardware]Combined
HardwareSubcommittee Proposal






Randy wrote:
So, back to 508. Perhaps our definition should include something like
this:

A device is considered ³Self-Contained² if the original manufacturer has
not
provided a way for third-party software and hardware to be added to the
device.

No. This doesn't work. There may be a way, but if no AT vendor has
developed
the necessary AT, the product is NOT accessible. The developer says: Sure
you're welcome to make my product accessible. The AT developer says: Gee I

don't have te development resource to do that. So it's possible, not
happening, and not accessible. A product is only accessible if that
accessibility is reasonably available and exists.

A similar example occurs when the dveloper says "it worked with X AT" but
doesn't work with any of the AT users actually have. Still not really
accessible except in theory.
-Randy

From: Debbie Cook
Date: Tue, Dec 19 2006 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Combined HardwareSubcommitteeProposal

This works if you add the word existing to 2. So that you're talking about
existing AT or likely to exist, if you could define that.
----- Original Message -----
From: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed][teitac-general] [teitac-hardware]Combined
HardwareSubcommitteeProposal


Thank you, Randy. I'd just like to add that an E&IT product may be
designed to meet the Section 508 standards by:

1) Providing the accessibility features through the device itself, or
2) Making it compatible with AT
3) or both #1 and #2

A product may even meet many of the 508 criteria using both methods,
perhaps depending on the impairment being addressed. For example, the
manufacturer could decide to make the height of a product adjustable to
meet certain 508 requirements AND partner with an AT company to create a
more specialized solution for users who are blind or have dexterity
impairments.

This is a good opportunity for both manufacturers and AT companies to play
a role. We should also encourage mainstream E&IT manufacturers to
incorporate accessibility features when it makes sense to do so.

The scenario presented in the previous e-mail is a difficult one, in which
it appears that neither the mainstream E&IT manufacturer nor the AT vendor
are motivated/able, for whatever reason, to make the product accessible.
Since Section 508 uses the "carrot" system to encourage accessible design,
I am not sure what the appropriate solution is (of course the assumption
is that this product is covered by 508 and not 255). Perhaps our
procurement experts can help us on this one.

Thank you,

Aubrey

Aubrey Woolley
Government Policy and Compliance Analyst
Government Marketing Division
Canon USA, Inc.
TEL: (703) 807-3158
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =




"Debbie Cook" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
12/19/2006 12:51 PM
Please respond to
TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To
"TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
cc

Subject
Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-general] [teitac-hardware]Combined
HardwareSubcommittee Proposal






Randy wrote:
So, back to 508. Perhaps our definition should include something like
this:

A device is considered ³Self-Contained² if the original manufacturer has
not
provided a way for third-party software and hardware to be added to the
device.

No. This doesn't work. There may be a way, but if no AT vendor has
developed
the necessary AT, the product is NOT accessible. The developer says: Sure
you're welcome to make my product accessible. The AT developer says: Gee I

don't have te development resource to do that. So it's possible, not
happening, and not accessible. A product is only accessible if that
accessibility is reasonably available and exists.

A similar example occurs when the dveloper says "it worked with X AT" but
doesn't work with any of the AT users actually have. Still not really
accessible except in theory.
-Randy

From: awoolley@cusa.canon.com
Date: Tue, Dec 19 2006 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: Combined HardwareSubcommitteeProposal

Yes, that makes sense. To clarify:

"an E&IT product may be designed to meet the Section 508 standards by:

1) Providing the accessibility features through the device itself, or
2) Making it compatible with existing AT
3) or both #1 and #2"

Aubrey

Aubrey Woolley
Government Policy and Compliance Analyst
Government Marketing Division
Canon USA, Inc.
TEL: (703) 807-3158
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =




"Debbie Cook" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
12/19/2006 02:02 PM
Please respond to
TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To
"TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
cc

Subject
Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-general] [teitac-hardware]Combined
HardwareSubcommitteeProposal






This works if you add the word existing to 2. So that you're talking about

existing AT or likely to exist, if you could define that.
----- Original Message -----
From: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed][teitac-general] [teitac-hardware]Combined
HardwareSubcommitteeProposal


Thank you, Randy. I'd just like to add that an E&IT product may be
designed to meet the Section 508 standards by:

1) Providing the accessibility features through the device itself, or
2) Making it compatible with AT
3) or both #1 and #2

A product may even meet many of the 508 criteria using both methods,
perhaps depending on the impairment being addressed. For example, the
manufacturer could decide to make the height of a product adjustable to
meet certain 508 requirements AND partner with an AT company to create a
more specialized solution for users who are blind or have dexterity
impairments.

This is a good opportunity for both manufacturers and AT companies to play
a role. We should also encourage mainstream E&IT manufacturers to
incorporate accessibility features when it makes sense to do so.

The scenario presented in the previous e-mail is a difficult one, in which
it appears that neither the mainstream E&IT manufacturer nor the AT vendor
are motivated/able, for whatever reason, to make the product accessible.
Since Section 508 uses the "carrot" system to encourage accessible design,
I am not sure what the appropriate solution is (of course the assumption
is that this product is covered by 508 and not 255). Perhaps our
procurement experts can help us on this one.

Thank you,

Aubrey

Aubrey Woolley
Government Policy and Compliance Analyst
Government Marketing Division
Canon USA, Inc.
TEL: (703) 807-3158
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =




"Debbie Cook" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
12/19/2006 12:51 PM
Please respond to
TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To
"TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
cc

Subject
Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-general] [teitac-hardware]Combined
HardwareSubcommittee Proposal






Randy wrote:
So, back to 508. Perhaps our definition should include something like
this:

A device is considered ³Self-Contained² if the original manufacturer has
not
provided a way for third-party software and hardware to be added to the
device.

No. This doesn't work. There may be a way, but if no AT vendor has
developed
the necessary AT, the product is NOT accessible. The developer says: Sure
you're welcome to make my product accessible. The AT developer says: Gee I

don't have te development resource to do that. So it's possible, not
happening, and not accessible. A product is only accessible if that
accessibility is reasonably available and exists.

A similar example occurs when the dveloper says "it worked with X AT" but
doesn't work with any of the AT users actually have. Still not really
accessible except in theory.
-Randy

From: Peter Korn
Date: Tue, Dec 19 2006 4:20 PM
Subject: Re: Combined HardwareSubcommittee Proposal

Hi Randy,

In the case of the Rock Box, where a user re-flashes the BIOS on an iPod
to produce a new - and accessible - user interface, you wrote:

> ...
>
> It brings up an interesting point � we usually think of assistive
> technology software as something that co-operates with the operating
> system to provide accessibility. Here is an example where something
> completely replaces the operating system, perhaps making the hardware
> more accessible. But does that mean Apple can claim the iPod is
> accessible? Certainly the Apple-produced software on an iPod still is
> not. The system is �open� because someone took a can opener and pried
> it open... (so to speak). In my mind, the package as a whole (OEM
> hardware /and /software) is still self-contained.
>
> ...
>
> So, back to 508. Perhaps our definition should include something like
> this:
>
> A device is considered �Self-Contained� if the /original manufacturer/
> has not provided a way for third-party software and hardware to be
> added to the device.

By this definition, I would say that Windows 3.1 and (frankly) Windows
95 are both "self-contained" systems. Screen reader vendors took,
essentially, a "can opener" and pried open the display sub-system to
observe the text calls to build their off-screen models to provide an
alternate user interface. The original manufacturer had not provided any
explicit way for screen readers to be hooked into the system. They used
hacks and reverse engineering and patching/replacing components of the
OS in order to do their job.

I do see the Rock Box case as different from the Windows 3.1/95 screen
reader case, but the proposed definition above doesn't distinguish those
cases for me. In one case (Windows 3.1/95 screen reader) vendors used
system calls to modify code in memory to patch the display driver - or
wrote to disk and replaced the display driver there. In the other case
(iPod/Rock Box), vendors used BIOS reflashing capabilities to replace
the entire software package with their own. The platform facilities were
used in both cases - just for purposes unintended (and unsupported) by
the original manufacturer.

The difference I see with Rock Box vs. Windows 3.1/95 screen readers is
that the AT isn't providing access to an existing vendors product.
Rather it is creating an entirely new product that only re-uses the
existing vendors hardware. Kinda like buying an HP Windows PC, and
replacing Windows with UNIX. Entirely new product at the end (which
might "make the HP PC accessible", but it certainly isn't making the
entirety of what was purchased accessible).

If the Rock Box process (or some other) were to involve reflashing only
a portion of the iPod's software in a way that added these speech
capabilities and left the rest of the functionalityi nplace, then the
situation would be completely analogous to Windows 3.1/95 screen
readers. The only difference then would be that we are used to thinking
of desktops as being "open" and iPods as being "closed".


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.