Expanding the web's potential for people with disabilities

Getting Started

Introduction to web accessibility

WebAIM Training

May 21-22
Training Details

From the Blog

Community

You are here: Home > TEITAC Archives > Mailing List Archives

Thread Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

Return to this mailing list's archives

Next message

From: Randy Marsden (Home)
Date: Tue, Jan 16 2007 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

ItÂ¹s premature to conclude anything about the iPhone until we actually see
one and know more about the OS. But generally speaking, a touch interface
with back-lit LCD should be MORE accessible to people with low vision,
prosthetics, arthritis, or mobility impairments because on-screen buttons at
least have the potential of being made larger, displayed with greater
contrast, be scan-able, etc. (ie. More accessible than other devices with
small physical buttons). Touch screens also usually require less force than
mechanical buttons to activate.

The down-side of a touch interface is that a person who is blind canÂ¹t feel
the controls before activating them (a requirement in the present 508). So,
a touchscreen interface is an example of something that actually helps one
group of people with disabilities while making it difficult for another.
WeÂ¹re struggling with touch interfaces right now on the Hardware Sub-con.
The present version of Section 508 appears to be heavily weighted toward
people who canÂ¹t see, to the potential detriment of other types of
disabilities. Some sort of functional split in the requirements seems
needed.

-Randy
>
> From: "Tom Brett" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:01:09 -0500
> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>

> In addition to the blind customers, people with low vision, prosthetics,
> arthritis and other mobility problems will not be able to operate this unit.
> While it is a marvel of technology it appears to be limited to only a certain
> class of persons
>
>
>
> Tom Brett
>
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Lazzaro, Joe
> (ITD)
> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:35 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>
>
>
> From what I hear, mostly from the "Blind Confidential" blog, the iPhone may be
> inaccessible for blind users. I've also heard that the phone runs OS X, which
> could be beneficial if true. Maybe the phone will support VoiceOver? But the
> initial rumblings I'm hearing are that the ipPhone may be inaccessible,
> especially for blind consumers.
>
>
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Joe Lazzaro
> Manager: Assistive Technology Group
> Information Technology Division
> Commonwealth of Massachusetts
> One Ashburton Place
> Room 1601
> Boston, MA 02108
> Voice: 617-626-4410
> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Web: www.Mass.gov/ITD
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
> Vanderheiden
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:32 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC self contained/closed products
> subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>
> I think this is a good example of how we need to think of 'closedÂ¹ as a
> condition Â not as a type of software or hardware.
>
>
>
>
>
> Anyone know more about the iphone? They said it was based on OS X but it
> could be just a small version of it (like windows and windows mobile).
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Randy
>> Marsden (Home)
>> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:32 AM
>> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee; 'TEITAC Web/Software
>> Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>>
>> Jim Â I see this is a repost from the same email sent on Dec 22nd. My
>> apologies for not responding back then.
>>
>> WeÂ¹re starting to split hairs here, but technically I think the iPod could be
>> characterized as follows:
>> 1. The iPod hardware is an example of open hardware, since there is a port
>> that allows 3rd party software to be loaded on the device (ie. Rock Box).
>> 2. The iPod operating system as shipped from Appleis an example of closed
>> software, since it does not allow 3rd party application software or assistive
>> technology software to be loaded inaddition to the existing software that it
>> ships with.
>>
>> I think youÂ¹re accurate in drawing the analogy between the iPod hardware and
>> PC hardware. Loading Rock Box on an iPod is analogous to purchasing a PC
>> with Windows loaded, but then reformatting the hard drive and loading Linux
>> instead. Same PC Â different operating systems. So, in terms of definition,
>> I think you would still have to characterize the iPodÂ¹s software as closed
>> (but its hardware as open).
>>
>> So what defines a product? Its hardware, its software, or the combination of
>> both? When the federal government purchases iPods for their employees to use
>> for training purposes, I assume they are thinking of the latter. If a
>> Department bids out and receives 500 computer running Windows, they donÂ¹t
>> expect some people to remove Windows and load Linux instead (or visa versa).
>> With respect to the iPod, they probably have little instruction manuals
>> written that say things like:
>>
>> Â³To listen to module 1 of the training, navigate to the Music menu, select
>> Playlists, and choose ?Module 1Â¹Â².
>>
>> I doubt there is an addendum to the manual that says:
>>
>> Â³If you have a disability, back up all the content of the iPod, load the new
>> operating system called Rock Box by connecting a USB cable from your iPod to
>> your computer that is running the Rock Box installation software (which
>> youÂ¹ll need to obtain on-line), restore the content (and try to keep it in
>> the same order), and then find Module 1. And by the way, since there is no
>> text-to-speech engine that comes with Rock Box, you will need to find ?Module
>> 1Â² by listening to each letter pronounced Â³mÂ², Â³oÂ², Â³dÂ², and so on.
>>
>> This just doesnÂ¹t seem like an equitable solution for people with
>> disabilities. If the government hands them an iPod for training, it should
>> be accessible as-is, or with the addition of AT. Right now it isnÂ¹t, so I
>> would call that Â³closedÂ² (ie. Not accessible on its own, and not possible to
>> add AT that makes it accessible to people with disabilities).
>>
>> -Randy
>>
>> PS: Maybe the repost is because of the recent announcement of the iPhone,
>> which is also an iPod, and running OS X, which (I think) is open, and
>> completely changes my iPod argument! ;-) See how fast technology
>> changes...?
>>
>>
>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Reply-To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:01:39 -0500
>> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC self contained/closed products
>> subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Randy wrote, regarding iPods that it's an example of "closed software", even
>>> given David Poehlman's identification of "Rock Box" as alternative
>>> interface. I don't see how this is so.
>>>
>>> 1. iPods are designed to accept software upgrades from Apple, so they are
>>> not "closed" in that aspect, at least. Apple could somehow lock out all
>>> software changes that did not come thorough Apple themselves, but they
>>> appear not to have done that. Even in that case, the "closedness" would be
>>> by policy, not by technological feasibility.
>>>
>>> 2. "Rock Box" is an example of a third-party software solution to some
>>> accessibility issues that can be loaded onto an iPod. Assuming that the
>>> original iPod interface can be restored somehow, doesn't that make the iPod
>>> almost like a PC, able to run with or without a screen reader, not like a
>>> product
>>>
>>> ***********
>>> Jim Tobias
>>> Inclusive Technologies
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
>>> skype jimtobias
>>> www.inclusive.com
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Randy Marsden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:46 PM
>>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee; TEITAC self contained/closed products
>>> subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
>>>
>>> My iPod description given in emails yesterday is one such example.
>>>
>>> -Randy
>>>
>>>
>>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:55:58 -0500
>>> To: "'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the discussion of closed products, we seem to be converging on the
>>>> opinion that "closed" is a characteristic, not a category. In this
>>>> context,
>>>> software has been mentioned as potentially closed. Can someone please give
>>>> me an example, or a further explanation, of what closed software might be?
>>>>
>>>> ***********
>>>> Jim Tobias
>>>> Inclusive Technologies
>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
>>>> skype jimtobias
>>>> www.inclusive.com
>>>>
>>>>

Previous message | Next message

From: Randy Marsden (Home)
Date: Tue, Jan 16 2007 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

Previous message | Next message

From: David Poehlman
Date: Tue, Jan 16 2007 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

I don't think tactilly discernable means mechanical.

On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:27 PM, Randy Marsden (Home) wrote:

Itâ��s premature to conclude anything about the iPhone until we
actually see
one and know more about the OS. But generally speaking, a touch
interface
with back-lit LCD should be MORE accessible to people with low vision,
prosthetics, arthritis, or mobility impairments because on-screen
buttons at
least have the potential of being made larger, displayed with greater
contrast, be scan-able, etc. (ie. More accessible than other devices
with
small physical buttons). Touch screens also usually require less
force than
mechanical buttons to activate.

The down-side of a touch interface is that a person who is blind
canâ��t feel
the controls before activating them (a requirement in the present
508). So,
a touchscreen interface is an example of something that actually
helps one
group of people with disabilities while making it difficult for another.
Weâ��re struggling with touch interfaces right now on the Hardware Sub-
con.
The present version of Section 508 appears to be heavily weighted toward
people who canâ��t see, to the potential detriment of other types of
disabilities. Some sort of functional split in the requirements seems
needed.

-Randy
>
> From: "Tom Brett" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:01:09 -0500
> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'" <teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>

> In addition to the blind customers, people with low vision,
> prosthetics,
> arthritis and other mobility problems will not be able to operate
> this unit.
> While it is a marvel of technology it appears to be limited to only
> a certain
> class of persons
>
>
>
> Tom Brett
>
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Lazzaro, Joe
> (ITD)
> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:35 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>
>
>
> From what I hear, mostly from the "Blind Confidential" blog, the
> iPhone may be
> inaccessible for blind users. I've also heard that the phone runs
> OS X, which
> could be beneficial if true. Maybe the phone will support
> VoiceOver? But the
> initial rumblings I'm hearing are that the ipPhone may be
> inaccessible,
> especially for blind consumers.
>
>
>
> Joe
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Joe Lazzaro
> Manager: Assistive Technology Group
> Information Technology Division
> Commonwealth of Massachusetts
> One Ashburton Place
> Room 1601
> Boston, MA 02108
> Voice: 617-626-4410
> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Web: www.Mass.gov/ITD
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
> Vanderheiden
> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:32 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC self contained/
> closed products
> subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>
> I think this is a good example of how we need to think of 'closedâ��
> as a
> condition â�� not as a type of software or hardware.
>
>
>
>
>
> Anyone know more about the iphone? They said it was based on OS X
> but it
> could be just a small version of it (like windows and windows
> mobile).
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> Randy
>> Marsden (Home)
>> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:32 AM
>> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee; 'TEITAC
>> Web/Software
>> Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>>
>> Jim â�� I see this is a repost from the same email sent on Dec
>> 22nd. My
>> apologies for not responding back then.
>>
>> Weâ��re starting to split hairs here, but technically I think the
>> iPod could be
>> characterized as follows:
>> 1. The iPod hardware is an example of open hardware, since there
>> is a port
>> that allows 3rd party software to be loaded on the device (ie.
>> Rock Box).
>> 2. The iPod operating system as shipped from Appleis an example of
>> closed
>> software, since it does not allow 3rd party application software
>> or assistive
>> technology software to be loaded inaddition to the existing
>> software that it
>> ships with.
>>
>> I think youâ��re accurate in drawing the analogy between the iPod
>> hardware and
>> PC hardware. Loading Rock Box on an iPod is analogous to
>> purchasing a PC
>> with Windows loaded, but then reformatting the hard drive and
>> loading Linux
>> instead. Same PC â�� different operating systems. So, in terms of
>> definition,
>> I think you would still have to characterize the iPodâ��s software
>> as closed
>> (but its hardware as open).
>>
>> So what defines a product? Its hardware, its software, or the
>> combination of
>> both? When the federal government purchases iPods for their
>> employees to use
>> for training purposes, I assume they are thinking of the latter.
>> If a
>> Department bids out and receives 500 computer running Windows,
>> they donâ��t
>> expect some people to remove Windows and load Linux instead (or
>> visa versa).
>> With respect to the iPod, they probably have little instruction
>> manuals
>> written that say things like:
>>
>> â��To listen to module 1 of the training, navigate to the Music
>> menu, select
>> Playlists, and choose â��Module 1â��â��.
>>
>> I doubt there is an addendum to the manual that says:
>>
>> â��If you have a disability, back up all the content of the iPod,
>> load the new
>> operating system called Rock Box by connecting a USB cable from
>> your iPod to
>> your computer that is running the Rock Box installation software
>> (which
>> youâ��ll need to obtain on-line), restore the content (and try to
>> keep it in
>> the same order), and then find Module 1. And by the way, since
>> there is no
>> text-to-speech engine that comes with Rock Box, you will need to
>> find â��Module
>> 1â�� by listening to each letter pronounced â��mâ��, â��oâ��, â��dâ��, and so on.
>>
>> This just doesnâ��t seem like an equitable solution for people with
>> disabilities. If the government hands them an iPod for training,
>> it should
>> be accessible as-is, or with the addition of AT. Right now it
>> isnâ��t, so I
>> would call that â��closedâ�� (ie. Not accessible on its own, and not
>> possible to
>> add AT that makes it accessible to people with disabilities).
>>
>> -Randy
>>
>> PS: Maybe the repost is because of the recent announcement of the
>> iPhone,
>> which is also an iPod, and running OS X, which (I think) is open, and
>> completely changes my iPod argument! ;-) See how fast technology
>> changes...?
>>
>>
>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Reply-To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:01:39 -0500
>> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC self contained/
>> closed products
>> subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Randy wrote, regarding iPods that it's an example of "closed
>>> software", even
>>> given David Poehlman's identification of "Rock Box" as alternative
>>> interface. I don't see how this is so.
>>>
>>> 1. iPods are designed to accept software upgrades from Apple, so
>>> they are
>>> not "closed" in that aspect, at least. Apple could somehow lock
>>> out all
>>> software changes that did not come thorough Apple themselves, but
>>> they
>>> appear not to have done that. Even in that case, the
>>> "closedness" would be
>>> by policy, not by technological feasibility.
>>>
>>> 2. "Rock Box" is an example of a third-party software solution to
>>> some
>>> accessibility issues that can be loaded onto an iPod. Assuming
>>> that the
>>> original iPod interface can be restored somehow, doesn't that
>>> make the iPod
>>> almost like a PC, able to run with or without a screen reader,
>>> not like a
>>> product
>>>
>>> ***********
>>> Jim Tobias
>>> Inclusive Technologies
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
>>> skype jimtobias
>>> www.inclusive.com
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Randy Marsden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:46 PM
>>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee; TEITAC self contained/
>>> closed products
>>> subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
>>>
>>> My iPod description given in emails yesterday is one such example.
>>>
>>> -Randy
>>>
>>>
>>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:55:58 -0500
>>> To: "'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC Web/Software
>>> Subcommittee'"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> In the discussion of closed products, we seem to be converging
>>>> on the
>>>> opinion that "closed" is a characteristic, not a category. In this
>>>> context,
>>>> software has been mentioned as potentially closed. Can someone
>>>> please give
>>>> me an example, or a further explanation, of what closed software
>>>> might be?
>>>>
>>>> ***********
>>>> Jim Tobias
>>>> Inclusive Technologies
>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
>>>> skype jimtobias
>>>> www.inclusive.com
>>>>
>>>>

Previous message | Next message

From: David Poehlman
Date: Tue, Jan 16 2007 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

Previous message | Next message

From: Randy Marsden (Home)
Date: Tue, Jan 16 2007 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

Uhmm... OK. Can you explain more what you mean? I donÂ¹t follow.

Tactile means touch. IÂ¹m assuming to be able to feel a control (like a
button), it must have some sort of distinguishing physical characteristic.
Even if it doesnÂ¹t move, it may be raised, have different texture, or have
an outline; something that you can feel.

IÂ¹m assuming on-screen controls, such as the Â³answerÂ² button on a
touch-screen phone, are not tactilely discernable as per section 1194.26
(b), which reads:

(b) If a product utilizes touchscreens or touch-operated controls, an input
method shall be provided that complies with Â§1194.23 (k) (1) through (4).

Section Â§1194.23 (k) (1) reads:

(1) Controls and keys shall be tactilely discernible without activating the
controls or keys.

This leads me to believe that under the current Section 508, the iPhone (for
example) would not meet the regulations, because only one of its controls
are tactilely discernible Â the rest are on-screen. But thatÂ¹s a shame for
people with mobility impairments, because on-screen controls are exactly
what they need, and tactile buttons that they canÂ¹t actuate needlessly take
up space and get in the way. IÂ¹d like to see us re-word 508 in such a way
that we recognize different accommodations are needed for different types of
disabilities, and requiring one product to fit all may not be desirable Â
especially to consumers. Perhaps thatÂ¹s what the section on Functional
Performance Criteria does, with the provisions for AT. Is that true? Does
Subpart C trump Subpart B?

-Randy
>
> From: David Poehlman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Reply-To: "TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 21:33:48 -0500
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Cc: "TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed]
> "touchscreens"
>

> I don't think tactilly discernable means mechanical.
>
> On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:27 PM, Randy Marsden (Home) wrote:
>
> ItÂ¹s premature to conclude anything about the iPhone until we
> actually see
> one and know more about the OS. But generally speaking, a touch
> interface
> with back-lit LCD should be MORE accessible to people with low vision,
> prosthetics, arthritis, or mobility impairments because on-screen
> buttons at
> least have the potential of being made larger, displayed with greater
> contrast, be scan-able, etc. (ie. More accessible than other devices
> with
> small physical buttons). Touch screens also usually require less
> force than
> mechanical buttons to activate.
>
> The down-side of a touch interface is that a person who is blind
> canÂ¹t feel
> the controls before activating them (a requirement in the present
> 508). So,
> a touchscreen interface is an example of something that actually
> helps one
> group of people with disabilities while making it difficult for another.
> WeÂ¹re struggling with touch interfaces right now on the Hardware Sub-
> con.
> The present version of Section 508 appears to be heavily weighted toward
> people who canÂ¹t see, to the potential detriment of other types of
> disabilities. Some sort of functional split in the requirements seems
> needed.
>
> -Randy
>> >
>> > From: "Tom Brett" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> > Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> > Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:01:09 -0500
>> > To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'" <teitac-
>> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>> >
>
>> > In addition to the blind customers, people with low vision,
>> > prosthetics,
>> > arthritis and other mobility problems will not be able to operate
>> > this unit.
>> > While it is a marvel of technology it appears to be limited to only
>> > a certain
>> > class of persons
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Tom Brett
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> > Lazzaro, Joe
>> > (ITD)
>> > Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:35 PM
>> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From what I hear, mostly from the "Blind Confidential" blog, the
>> > iPhone may be
>> > inaccessible for blind users. I've also heard that the phone runs
>> > OS X, which
>> > could be beneficial if true. Maybe the phone will support
>> > VoiceOver? But the
>> > initial rumblings I'm hearing are that the ipPhone may be
>> > inaccessible,
>> > especially for blind consumers.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Joe
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Joe Lazzaro
>> > Manager: Assistive Technology Group
>> > Information Technology Division
>> > Commonwealth of Massachusetts
>> > One Ashburton Place
>> > Room 1601
>> > Boston, MA 02108
>> > Voice: 617-626-4410
>> > Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> > Web: www.Mass.gov/ITD
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
>> > Vanderheiden
>> > Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:32 PM
>> > To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC self contained/
>> > closed products
>> > subcommittee'
>> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>> >
>> > I think this is a good example of how we need to think of 'closedÂ¹
>> > as a
>> > condition Â not as a type of software or hardware.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Anyone know more about the iphone? They said it was based on OS X
>> > but it
>> > could be just a small version of it (like windows and windows
>> > mobile).
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Gregg
>> > -- ------------------------------
>> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>> >
>> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>> >> Randy
>>> >> Marsden (Home)
>>> >> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:32 AM
>>> >> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee; 'TEITAC
>>> >> Web/Software
>>> >> Subcommittee'
>>> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>>> >>
>>> >> Jim Â I see this is a repost from the same email sent on Dec
>>> >> 22nd. My
>>> >> apologies for not responding back then.
>>> >>
>>> >> WeÂ¹re starting to split hairs here, but technically I think the
>>> >> iPod could be
>>> >> characterized as follows:
>>> >> 1. The iPod hardware is an example of open hardware, since there
>>> >> is a port
>>> >> that allows 3rd party software to be loaded on the device (ie.
>>> >> Rock Box).
>>> >> 2. The iPod operating system as shipped from Appleis an example of
>>> >> closed
>>> >> software, since it does not allow 3rd party application software
>>> >> or assistive
>>> >> technology software to be loaded inaddition to the existing
>>> >> software that it
>>> >> ships with.
>>> >>
>>> >> I think youÂ¹re accurate in drawing the analogy between the iPod
>>> >> hardware and
>>> >> PC hardware. Loading Rock Box on an iPod is analogous to
>>> >> purchasing a PC
>>> >> with Windows loaded, but then reformatting the hard drive and
>>> >> loading Linux
>>> >> instead. Same PC Â different operating systems. So, in terms of
>>> >> definition,
>>> >> I think you would still have to characterize the iPodÂ¹s software
>>> >> as closed
>>> >> (but its hardware as open).
>>> >>
>>> >> So what defines a product? Its hardware, its software, or the
>>> >> combination of
>>> >> both? When the federal government purchases iPods for their
>>> >> employees to use
>>> >> for training purposes, I assume they are thinking of the latter.
>>> >> If a
>>> >> Department bids out and receives 500 computer running Windows,
>>> >> they donÂ¹t
>>> >> expect some people to remove Windows and load Linux instead (or
>>> >> visa versa).
>>> >> With respect to the iPod, they probably have little instruction
>>> >> manuals
>>> >> written that say things like:
>>> >>
>>> >> Â³To listen to module 1 of the training, navigate to the Music
>>> >> menu, select
>>> >> Playlists, and choose ?Module 1Â¹Â².
>>> >>
>>> >> I doubt there is an addendum to the manual that says:
>>> >>
>>> >> Â³If you have a disability, back up all the content of the iPod,
>>> >> load the new
>>> >> operating system called Rock Box by connecting a USB cable from
>>> >> your iPod to
>>> >> your computer that is running the Rock Box installation software
>>> >> (which
>>> >> youÂ¹ll need to obtain on-line), restore the content (and try to
>>> >> keep it in
>>> >> the same order), and then find Module 1. And by the way, since
>>> >> there is no
>>> >> text-to-speech engine that comes with Rock Box, you will need to
>>> >> find ?Module
>>> >> 1Â² by listening to each letter pronounced Â³mÂ², Â³oÂ², Â³dÂ², and so on.
>>> >>
>>> >> This just doesnÂ¹t seem like an equitable solution for people with
>>> >> disabilities. If the government hands them an iPod for training,
>>> >> it should
>>> >> be accessible as-is, or with the addition of AT. Right now it
>>> >> isnÂ¹t, so I
>>> >> would call that Â³closedÂ² (ie. Not accessible on its own, and not
>>> >> possible to
>>> >> add AT that makes it accessible to people with disabilities).
>>> >>
>>> >> -Randy
>>> >>
>>> >> PS: Maybe the repost is because of the recent announcement of the
>>> >> iPhone,
>>> >> which is also an iPod, and running OS X, which (I think) is open, and
>>> >> completely changes my iPod argument! ;-) See how fast technology
>>> >> changes...?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> >> Reply-To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
>>> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> >> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:01:39 -0500
>>> >> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
>>> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC self contained/
>>> >> closed products
>>> >> subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Randy wrote, regarding iPods that it's an example of "closed
>>>> >>> software", even
>>>> >>> given David Poehlman's identification of "Rock Box" as alternative
>>>> >>> interface. I don't see how this is so.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> 1. iPods are designed to accept software upgrades from Apple, so
>>>> >>> they are
>>>> >>> not "closed" in that aspect, at least. Apple could somehow lock
>>>> >>> out all
>>>> >>> software changes that did not come thorough Apple themselves, but
>>>> >>> they
>>>> >>> appear not to have done that. Even in that case, the
>>>> >>> "closedness" would be
>>>> >>> by policy, not by technological feasibility.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> 2. "Rock Box" is an example of a third-party software solution to
>>>> >>> some
>>>> >>> accessibility issues that can be loaded onto an iPod. Assuming
>>>> >>> that the
>>>> >>> original iPod interface can be restored somehow, doesn't that
>>>> >>> make the iPod
>>>> >>> almost like a PC, able to run with or without a screen reader,
>>>> >>> not like a
>>>> >>> product
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> ***********
>>>> >>> Jim Tobias
>>>> >>> Inclusive Technologies
>>>> >>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> >>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
>>>> >>> skype jimtobias
>>>> >>> www.inclusive.com
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> From: Randy Marsden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>>>> >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:46 PM
>>>> >>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee; TEITAC self contained/
>>>> >>> closed products
>>>> >>> subcommittee
>>>> >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> My iPod description given in emails yesterday is one such example.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> -Randy
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> >>> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>>>> >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> >>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:55:58 -0500
>>>> >>> To: "'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'"
>>>> >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC Web/Software
>>>> >>> Subcommittee'"
>>>> >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> >>> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> In the discussion of closed products, we seem to be converging
>>>>> >>>> on the
>>>>> >>>> opinion that "closed" is a characteristic, not a category. In this
>>>>> >>>> context,
>>>>> >>>> software has been mentioned as potentially closed. Can someone
>>>>> >>>> please give
>>>>> >>>> me an example, or a further explanation, of what closed software
>>>>> >>>> might be?
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> ***********
>>>>> >>>> Jim Tobias
>>>>> >>>> Inclusive Technologies
>>>>> >>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> >>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
>>>>> >>>> skype jimtobias
>>>>> >>>> www.inclusive.com
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>>

Previous message | Next message

From: Randy Marsden (Home)
Date: Tue, Jan 16 2007 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

Previous message | Next message

From: David Poehlman
Date: Tue, Jan 16 2007 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

Hi Randy and all,

As I understand it, the device will be configurable such that it can
ignore accidental key presses. It is also possible to use something
other than a finger to interact with the screen. In large part as
far as this device is concerned, we'll have to wait and see but it
does not seem totally hopeless. I do know that once I had a
Microwave on which I placed scotch tape so that I could find the
touch buttons. Others have used braille dymo and I've used loc dots
as well.

Previous message | Next message

From: David Poehlman
Date: Tue, Jan 16 2007 5:14 PM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

Previous message | Next message

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Jan 17 2007 6:10 AM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

For the most part, tactilely discernable controls are mechanical including
flat membrane panels with tactile markers. There are exceptions like a
glass control panel where the controls are painted on and tactile markers
are provided.

On the iphone, there are a limited number of fixed controls (volume,
'silent', home button, etc.) but most of the controls are on the
touchscreen. If full control were possible from the tactile controls then
it would pass. Also, it has Bluetooth and may accept a Bluetooth keyboard
or keypad. That would require reprogramming though.

This all gets back to the definition of closed and how we want to use that
term though.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of David Poehlman
> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 8:34 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Cc: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "touchscreens"
>
> I don't think tactilly discernable means mechanical.
>
> On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:27 PM, Randy Marsden (Home) wrote:
>
> It's premature to conclude anything about the iPhone until we
> actually see one and know more about the OS. But generally
> speaking, a touch interface with back-lit LCD should be MORE
> accessible to people with low vision, prosthetics, arthritis,
> or mobility impairments because on-screen buttons at least
> have the potential of being made larger, displayed with
> greater contrast, be scan-able, etc. (ie. More accessible
> than other devices with small physical buttons). Touch
> screens also usually require less force than mechanical
> buttons to activate.
>
> The down-side of a touch interface is that a person who is
> blind can't feel the controls before activating them (a
> requirement in the present 508). So, a touchscreen interface
> is an example of something that actually helps one group of
> people with disabilities while making it difficult for another.
> We're struggling with touch interfaces right now on the
> Hardware Sub- con.
> The present version of Section 508 appears to be heavily
> weighted toward people who can't see, to the potential
> detriment of other types of disabilities. Some sort of
> functional split in the requirements seems needed.
>
> -Randy
> >
> > From: "Tom Brett" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:01:09 -0500
> > To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'" <teitac-
> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
> >
>
> > In addition to the blind customers, people with low vision,
> > prosthetics,
> > arthritis and other mobility problems will not be able to operate
> > this unit.
> > While it is a marvel of technology it appears to be limited
> to only
> > a certain
> > class of persons
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom Brett
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > Lazzaro, Joe
> > (ITD)
> > Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:35 PM
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
> >
> >
> >
> > From what I hear, mostly from the "Blind Confidential" blog, the
> > iPhone may be
> > inaccessible for blind users. I've also heard that the phone runs
> > OS X, which
> > could be beneficial if true. Maybe the phone will support
> > VoiceOver? But the
> > initial rumblings I'm hearing are that the ipPhone may be
> > inaccessible,
> > especially for blind consumers.
> >
> >
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Joe Lazzaro
> > Manager: Assistive Technology Group
> > Information Technology Division
> > Commonwealth of Massachusetts
> > One Ashburton Place
> > Room 1601
> > Boston, MA 02108
> > Voice: 617-626-4410
> > Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > Web: www.Mass.gov/ITD
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Gregg
> > Vanderheiden
> > Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:32 PM
> > To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC self contained/
> > closed products
> > subcommittee'
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
> >
> > I think this is a good example of how we need to think of 'closed'
> > as a
> > condition - not as a type of software or hardware.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Anyone know more about the iphone? They said it was based
> on OS X
> > but it
> > could be just a small version of it (like windows and windows
> > mobile).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> >> Randy
> >> Marsden (Home)
> >> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:32 AM
> >> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee; 'TEITAC
> >> Web/Software
> >> Subcommittee'
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
> >>
> >> Jim - I see this is a repost from the same email sent on Dec
> >> 22nd. My
> >> apologies for not responding back then.
> >>
> >> We're starting to split hairs here, but technically I think the
> >> iPod could be
> >> characterized as follows:
> >> 1. The iPod hardware is an example of open hardware, since there
> >> is a port
> >> that allows 3rd party software to be loaded on the device (ie.
> >> Rock Box).
> >> 2. The iPod operating system as shipped from Appleis an
> example of
> >> closed
> >> software, since it does not allow 3rd party application software
> >> or assistive
> >> technology software to be loaded inaddition to the existing
> >> software that it
> >> ships with.
> >>
> >> I think you're accurate in drawing the analogy between the iPod
> >> hardware and
> >> PC hardware. Loading Rock Box on an iPod is analogous to
> >> purchasing a PC
> >> with Windows loaded, but then reformatting the hard drive and
> >> loading Linux
> >> instead. Same PC - different operating systems. So, in terms of
> >> definition,
> >> I think you would still have to characterize the iPod's software
> >> as closed
> >> (but its hardware as open).
> >>
> >> So what defines a product? Its hardware, its software, or the
> >> combination of
> >> both? When the federal government purchases iPods for their
> >> employees to use
> >> for training purposes, I assume they are thinking of the latter.
> >> If a
> >> Department bids out and receives 500 computer running Windows,
> >> they don't
> >> expect some people to remove Windows and load Linux instead (or
> >> visa versa).
> >> With respect to the iPod, they probably have little instruction
> >> manuals
> >> written that say things like:
> >>
> >> "To listen to module 1 of the training, navigate to the Music
> >> menu, select
> >> Playlists, and choose 'Module 1'".
> >>
> >> I doubt there is an addendum to the manual that says:
> >>
> >> "If you have a disability, back up all the content of the iPod,
> >> load the new
> >> operating system called Rock Box by connecting a USB cable from
> >> your iPod to
> >> your computer that is running the Rock Box installation software
> >> (which
> >> you'll need to obtain on-line), restore the content (and try to
> >> keep it in
> >> the same order), and then find Module 1. And by the way, since
> >> there is no
> >> text-to-speech engine that comes with Rock Box, you will need to
> >> find 'Module
> >> 1" by listening to each letter pronounced "m", "o", "d", and so on.
> >>
> >> This just doesn't seem like an equitable solution for people with
> >> disabilities. If the government hands them an iPod for training,
> >> it should
> >> be accessible as-is, or with the addition of AT. Right now it
> >> isn't, so I
> >> would call that "closed" (ie. Not accessible on its own, and not
> >> possible to
> >> add AT that makes it accessible to people with disabilities).
> >>
> >> -Randy
> >>
> >> PS: Maybe the repost is because of the recent
> announcement of the
> >> iPhone,
> >> which is also an iPod, and running OS X, which (I think)
> is open, and
> >> completely changes my iPod argument! ;-) See how fast technology
> >> changes...?
> >>
> >>
> >> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Reply-To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:01:39 -0500
> >> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC self contained/
> >> closed products
> >> subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Randy wrote, regarding iPods that it's an example of "closed
> >>> software", even
> >>> given David Poehlman's identification of "Rock Box" as alternative
> >>> interface. I don't see how this is so.
> >>>
> >>> 1. iPods are designed to accept software upgrades from Apple, so
> >>> they are
> >>> not "closed" in that aspect, at least. Apple could somehow lock
> >>> out all
> >>> software changes that did not come thorough Apple
> themselves, but
> >>> they
> >>> appear not to have done that. Even in that case, the
> >>> "closedness" would be
> >>> by policy, not by technological feasibility.
> >>>
> >>> 2. "Rock Box" is an example of a third-party software
> solution to
> >>> some
> >>> accessibility issues that can be loaded onto an iPod. Assuming
> >>> that the
> >>> original iPod interface can be restored somehow, doesn't that
> >>> make the iPod
> >>> almost like a PC, able to run with or without a screen reader,
> >>> not like a
> >>> product
> >>>
> >>> ***********
> >>> Jim Tobias
> >>> Inclusive Technologies
> >>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> >>> skype jimtobias
> >>> www.inclusive.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Randy Marsden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:46 PM
> >>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee; TEITAC self contained/
> >>> closed products
> >>> subcommittee
> >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
> >>>
> >>> My iPod description given in emails yesterday is one such example.
> >>>
> >>> -Randy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:55:58 -0500
> >>> To: "'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'"
> >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC Web/Software
> >>> Subcommittee'"
> >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In the discussion of closed products, we seem to be converging
> >>>> on the
> >>>> opinion that "closed" is a characteristic, not a
> category. In this
> >>>> context,
> >>>> software has been mentioned as potentially closed. Can someone
> >>>> please give
> >>>> me an example, or a further explanation, of what closed
> software
> >>>> might be?
> >>>>
> >>>> ***********
> >>>> Jim Tobias
> >>>> Inclusive Technologies
> >>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> >>>> skype jimtobias
> >>>> www.inclusive.com
> >>>>
> >>>>

Previous message | Next message

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Jan 17 2007 6:15 AM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

Previous message | Next message

From: Brett, Thomas F
Date: Wed, Jan 17 2007 6:25 AM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

Gregg said:

"it has Bluetooth and may accept a Bluetooth keyboard or keypad."

Adding additional equipment to this device could result in creating an
Iphone that is accessible but that would not mean that the Iphone,
itself, meets the current 508 standards. If reprogramming is possible to
allow a keypad or keyboard to be attached to the device, that would be a
accommodation. In addition the customer would be required to carry
additional equipment so the device can be used.

Tom Brett,
2026061206
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:09 AM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Cc: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "touchscreens"

For the most part, tactilely discernable controls are mechanical
including
flat membrane panels with tactile markers. There are exceptions like a
glass control panel where the controls are painted on and tactile
markers
are provided.

On the iphone, there are a limited number of fixed controls (volume,
'silent', home button, etc.) but most of the controls are on the
touchscreen. If full control were possible from the tactile controls
then
it would pass. Also, it has Bluetooth and may accept a Bluetooth
keyboard
or keypad. That would require reprogramming though.

This all gets back to the definition of closed and how we want to use
that
term though.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of David Poehlman
> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 8:34 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Cc: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "touchscreens"
>
> I don't think tactilly discernable means mechanical.
>
> On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:27 PM, Randy Marsden (Home) wrote:
>
> It's premature to conclude anything about the iPhone until we
> actually see one and know more about the OS. But generally
> speaking, a touch interface with back-lit LCD should be MORE
> accessible to people with low vision, prosthetics, arthritis,
> or mobility impairments because on-screen buttons at least
> have the potential of being made larger, displayed with
> greater contrast, be scan-able, etc. (ie. More accessible
> than other devices with small physical buttons). Touch
> screens also usually require less force than mechanical
> buttons to activate.
>
> The down-side of a touch interface is that a person who is
> blind can't feel the controls before activating them (a
> requirement in the present 508). So, a touchscreen interface
> is an example of something that actually helps one group of
> people with disabilities while making it difficult for another.
> We're struggling with touch interfaces right now on the
> Hardware Sub- con.
> The present version of Section 508 appears to be heavily
> weighted toward people who can't see, to the potential
> detriment of other types of disabilities. Some sort of
> functional split in the requirements seems needed.
>
> -Randy
> >
> > From: "Tom Brett" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:01:09 -0500
> > To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'" <teitac-
> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
> >
>
> > In addition to the blind customers, people with low vision,
> > prosthetics,
> > arthritis and other mobility problems will not be able to operate
> > this unit.
> > While it is a marvel of technology it appears to be limited
> to only
> > a certain
> > class of persons
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom Brett
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > Lazzaro, Joe
> > (ITD)
> > Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:35 PM
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
> >
> >
> >
> > From what I hear, mostly from the "Blind Confidential" blog, the
> > iPhone may be
> > inaccessible for blind users. I've also heard that the phone runs
> > OS X, which
> > could be beneficial if true. Maybe the phone will support
> > VoiceOver? But the
> > initial rumblings I'm hearing are that the ipPhone may be
> > inaccessible,
> > especially for blind consumers.
> >
> >
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Joe Lazzaro
> > Manager: Assistive Technology Group
> > Information Technology Division
> > Commonwealth of Massachusetts
> > One Ashburton Place
> > Room 1601
> > Boston, MA 02108
> > Voice: 617-626-4410
> > Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > Web: www.Mass.gov/ITD
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Gregg
> > Vanderheiden
> > Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:32 PM
> > To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC self contained/
> > closed products
> > subcommittee'
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
> >
> > I think this is a good example of how we need to think of 'closed'
> > as a
> > condition - not as a type of software or hardware.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Anyone know more about the iphone? They said it was based
> on OS X
> > but it
> > could be just a small version of it (like windows and windows
> > mobile).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> >> Randy
> >> Marsden (Home)
> >> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:32 AM
> >> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee; 'TEITAC
> >> Web/Software
> >> Subcommittee'
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
> >>
> >> Jim - I see this is a repost from the same email sent on Dec
> >> 22nd. My
> >> apologies for not responding back then.
> >>
> >> We're starting to split hairs here, but technically I think the
> >> iPod could be
> >> characterized as follows:
> >> 1. The iPod hardware is an example of open hardware, since there
> >> is a port
> >> that allows 3rd party software to be loaded on the device (ie.
> >> Rock Box).
> >> 2. The iPod operating system as shipped from Appleis an
> example of
> >> closed
> >> software, since it does not allow 3rd party application software
> >> or assistive
> >> technology software to be loaded inaddition to the existing
> >> software that it
> >> ships with.
> >>
> >> I think you're accurate in drawing the analogy between the iPod
> >> hardware and
> >> PC hardware. Loading Rock Box on an iPod is analogous to
> >> purchasing a PC
> >> with Windows loaded, but then reformatting the hard drive and
> >> loading Linux
> >> instead. Same PC - different operating systems. So, in terms of
> >> definition,
> >> I think you would still have to characterize the iPod's software
> >> as closed
> >> (but its hardware as open).
> >>
> >> So what defines a product? Its hardware, its software, or the
> >> combination of
> >> both? When the federal government purchases iPods for their
> >> employees to use
> >> for training purposes, I assume they are thinking of the latter.
> >> If a
> >> Department bids out and receives 500 computer running Windows,
> >> they don't
> >> expect some people to remove Windows and load Linux instead (or
> >> visa versa).
> >> With respect to the iPod, they probably have little instruction
> >> manuals
> >> written that say things like:
> >>
> >> "To listen to module 1 of the training, navigate to the Music
> >> menu, select
> >> Playlists, and choose 'Module 1'".
> >>
> >> I doubt there is an addendum to the manual that says:
> >>
> >> "If you have a disability, back up all the content of the iPod,
> >> load the new
> >> operating system called Rock Box by connecting a USB cable from
> >> your iPod to
> >> your computer that is running the Rock Box installation software
> >> (which
> >> you'll need to obtain on-line), restore the content (and try to
> >> keep it in
> >> the same order), and then find Module 1. And by the way, since
> >> there is no
> >> text-to-speech engine that comes with Rock Box, you will need to
> >> find 'Module
> >> 1" by listening to each letter pronounced "m", "o", "d", and so on.
> >>
> >> This just doesn't seem like an equitable solution for people with
> >> disabilities. If the government hands them an iPod for training,
> >> it should
> >> be accessible as-is, or with the addition of AT. Right now it
> >> isn't, so I
> >> would call that "closed" (ie. Not accessible on its own, and not
> >> possible to
> >> add AT that makes it accessible to people with disabilities).
> >>
> >> -Randy
> >>
> >> PS: Maybe the repost is because of the recent
> announcement of the
> >> iPhone,
> >> which is also an iPod, and running OS X, which (I think)
> is open, and
> >> completely changes my iPod argument! ;-) See how fast technology
> >> changes...?
> >>
> >>
> >> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Reply-To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:01:39 -0500
> >> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC self contained/
> >> closed products
> >> subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Randy wrote, regarding iPods that it's an example of "closed
> >>> software", even
> >>> given David Poehlman's identification of "Rock Box" as alternative
> >>> interface. I don't see how this is so.
> >>>
> >>> 1. iPods are designed to accept software upgrades from Apple, so
> >>> they are
> >>> not "closed" in that aspect, at least. Apple could somehow lock
> >>> out all
> >>> software changes that did not come thorough Apple
> themselves, but
> >>> they
> >>> appear not to have done that. Even in that case, the
> >>> "closedness" would be
> >>> by policy, not by technological feasibility.
> >>>
> >>> 2. "Rock Box" is an example of a third-party software
> solution to
> >>> some
> >>> accessibility issues that can be loaded onto an iPod. Assuming
> >>> that the
> >>> original iPod interface can be restored somehow, doesn't that
> >>> make the iPod
> >>> almost like a PC, able to run with or without a screen reader,
> >>> not like a
> >>> product
> >>>
> >>> ***********
> >>> Jim Tobias
> >>> Inclusive Technologies
> >>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> >>> skype jimtobias
> >>> www.inclusive.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Randy Marsden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:46 PM
> >>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee; TEITAC self contained/
> >>> closed products
> >>> subcommittee
> >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
> >>>
> >>> My iPod description given in emails yesterday is one such example.
> >>>
> >>> -Randy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:55:58 -0500
> >>> To: "'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'"
> >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC Web/Software
> >>> Subcommittee'"
> >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In the discussion of closed products, we seem to be converging
> >>>> on the
> >>>> opinion that "closed" is a characteristic, not a
> category. In this
> >>>> context,
> >>>> software has been mentioned as potentially closed. Can someone
> >>>> please give
> >>>> me an example, or a further explanation, of what closed
> software
> >>>> might be?
> >>>>
> >>>> ***********
> >>>> Jim Tobias
> >>>> Inclusive Technologies
> >>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> >>>> skype jimtobias
> >>>> www.inclusive.com
> >>>>
> >>>>

Previous message | Next message

From: Brett, Thomas F
Date: Wed, Jan 17 2007 6:30 AM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

Previous message | Next message

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Jan 17 2007 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

Correct.
It wouldn't be directly accessible and the access device would be larger
than the product!

Also, if it is OS X - is it full OS X or a subset.
If you replace its software with new software that is accessible -- is
the product accessible or have we just demonstrated that you can make an
accessible product with the hardware.

Lots of questions...

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Brett, Thomas F
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 7:20 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Cc: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] [teitac-websoftware]
> [teitac-closed]"touchscreens"
>
> Gregg said:
>
> "it has Bluetooth and may accept a Bluetooth keyboard or keypad."
>
> Adding additional equipment to this device could result in
> creating an Iphone that is accessible but that would not mean
> that the Iphone, itself, meets the current 508 standards. If
> reprogramming is possible to allow a keypad or keyboard to be
> attached to the device, that would be a accommodation. In
> addition the customer would be required to carry additional
> equipment so the device can be used.
>
>
>
> Tom Brett,
> 2026061206
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:09 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Cc: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "touchscreens"
>
> For the most part, tactilely discernable controls are
> mechanical including
> flat membrane panels with tactile markers. There are
> exceptions like a
> glass control panel where the controls are painted on and
> tactile markers are provided.
>
> On the iphone, there are a limited number of fixed controls
> (volume, 'silent', home button, etc.) but most of the
> controls are on the touchscreen. If full control were
> possible from the tactile controls then it would pass. Also,
> it has Bluetooth and may accept a Bluetooth keyboard or
> keypad. That would require reprogramming though.
>
>
> This all gets back to the definition of closed and how we
> want to use that term though.
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of David
> > Poehlman
> > Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 8:34 PM
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Cc: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "touchscreens"
> >
> > I don't think tactilly discernable means mechanical.
> >
> > On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:27 PM, Randy Marsden (Home) wrote:
> >
> > It's premature to conclude anything about the iPhone until
> we actually
> > see one and know more about the OS. But generally
> speaking, a touch
> > interface with back-lit LCD should be MORE accessible to
> people with
> > low vision, prosthetics, arthritis, or mobility impairments because
> > on-screen buttons at least have the potential of being made larger,
> > displayed with greater contrast, be scan-able, etc. (ie. More
> > accessible than other devices with small physical buttons). Touch
> > screens also usually require less force than mechanical buttons to
> > activate.
> >
> > The down-side of a touch interface is that a person who is
> blind can't
> > feel the controls before activating them (a requirement in
> the present
> > 508). So, a touchscreen interface is an example of something that
> > actually helps one group of people with disabilities while
> making it
> > difficult for another.
> > We're struggling with touch interfaces right now on the
> Hardware Sub-
> > con.
> > The present version of Section 508 appears to be heavily weighted
> > toward people who can't see, to the potential detriment of
> other types
> > of disabilities. Some sort of functional split in the requirements
> > seems needed.
> >
> > -Randy
> > >
> > > From: "Tom Brett" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > > Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > > Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:01:09 -0500
> > > To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'" <teitac-
> > > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed]
> "closed software"
> > >
> >
> > > In addition to the blind customers, people with low vision,
> > > prosthetics, arthritis and other mobility problems will
> not be able
> > > to operate this unit.
> > > While it is a marvel of technology it appears to be limited
> > to only
> > > a certain
> > > class of persons
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom Brett
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > > Lazzaro, Joe
> > > (ITD)
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:35 PM
> > > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed
> software"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From what I hear, mostly from the "Blind Confidential" blog, the
> > > iPhone may be inaccessible for blind users. I've also
> heard that the
> > > phone runs OS X, which could be beneficial if true. Maybe
> the phone
> > > will support VoiceOver? But the initial rumblings I'm hearing are
> > > that the ipPhone may be inaccessible, especially for blind
> > > consumers.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Joe
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Joe Lazzaro
> > > Manager: Assistive Technology Group
> > > Information Technology Division
> > > Commonwealth of Massachusetts
> > > One Ashburton Place
> > > Room 1601
> > > Boston, MA 02108
> > > Voice: 617-626-4410
> > > Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > Web: www.Mass.gov/ITD
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> > Behalf Of Gregg
> > > Vanderheiden
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:32 PM
> > > To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC self contained/
> > > closed products subcommittee'
> > > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed
> software"
> > >
> > > I think this is a good example of how we need to think of 'closed'
> > > as a
> > > condition - not as a type of software or hardware.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyone know more about the iphone? They said it was based
> > on OS X
> > > but it
> > > could be just a small version of it (like windows and windows
> > > mobile).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Gregg
> > > -- ------------------------------
> > > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > >> Randy Marsden (Home)
> > >> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:32 AM
> > >> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee; 'TEITAC
> > >> Web/Software Subcommittee'
> > >> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed]
> "closed software"
> > >>
> > >> Jim - I see this is a repost from the same email sent on
> Dec 22nd.
> > >> My apologies for not responding back then.
> > >>
> > >> We're starting to split hairs here, but technically I think the
> > >> iPod could be characterized as follows:
> > >> 1. The iPod hardware is an example of open hardware,
> since there is
> > >> a port that allows 3rd party software to be loaded on the device
> > >> (ie.
> > >> Rock Box).
> > >> 2. The iPod operating system as shipped from Appleis an
> > example of
> > >> closed
> > >> software, since it does not allow 3rd party application
> software or
> > >> assistive technology software to be loaded inaddition to the
> > >> existing software that it ships with.
> > >>
> > >> I think you're accurate in drawing the analogy between the iPod
> > >> hardware and PC hardware. Loading Rock Box on an iPod
> is analogous
> > >> to purchasing a PC with Windows loaded, but then
> reformatting the
> > >> hard drive and loading Linux instead. Same PC - different
> > >> operating systems. So, in terms of definition, I think
> you would
> > >> still have to characterize the iPod's software as closed
> (but its
> > >> hardware as open).
> > >>
> > >> So what defines a product? Its hardware, its software, or the
> > >> combination of both? When the federal government
> purchases iPods
> > >> for their employees to use for training purposes, I
> assume they are
> > >> thinking of the latter.
> > >> If a
> > >> Department bids out and receives 500 computer running
> Windows, they
> > >> don't expect some people to remove Windows and load
> Linux instead
> > >> (or visa versa).
> > >> With respect to the iPod, they probably have little instruction
> > >> manuals written that say things like:
> > >>
> > >> "To listen to module 1 of the training, navigate to the
> Music menu,
> > >> select Playlists, and choose 'Module 1'".
> > >>
> > >> I doubt there is an addendum to the manual that says:
> > >>
> > >> "If you have a disability, back up all the content of the iPod,
> > >> load the new operating system called Rock Box by
> connecting a USB
> > >> cable from your iPod to your computer that is running
> the Rock Box
> > >> installation software (which you'll need to obtain on-line),
> > >> restore the content (and try to keep it in the same order), and
> > >> then find Module 1. And by the way, since there is no
> > >> text-to-speech engine that comes with Rock Box, you will need to
> > >> find 'Module 1" by listening to each letter pronounced "m", "o",
> > >> "d", and so on.
> > >>
> > >> This just doesn't seem like an equitable solution for
> people with
> > >> disabilities. If the government hands them an iPod for
> training,
> > >> it should be accessible as-is, or with the addition of
> AT. Right
> > >> now it isn't, so I would call that "closed" (ie. Not
> accessible on
> > >> its own, and not possible to add AT that makes it accessible to
> > >> people with disabilities).
> > >>
> > >> -Randy
> > >>
> > >> PS: Maybe the repost is because of the recent
> > announcement of the
> > >> iPhone,
> > >> which is also an iPod, and running OS X, which (I think)
> > is open, and
> > >> completely changes my iPod argument! ;-) See how fast
> technology
> > >> changes...?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > >> Reply-To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
> > >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > >> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:01:39 -0500
> > >> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
> > >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC self contained/
> > >> closed products subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > >> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-websoftware]
> "closed software"
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Randy wrote, regarding iPods that it's an example of "closed
> > >>> software", even given David Poehlman's identification of "Rock
> > >>> Box" as alternative interface. I don't see how this is so.
> > >>>
> > >>> 1. iPods are designed to accept software upgrades from
> Apple, so
> > >>> they are not "closed" in that aspect, at least. Apple could
> > >>> somehow lock out all software changes that did not come
> thorough
> > >>> Apple
> > themselves, but
> > >>> they
> > >>> appear not to have done that. Even in that case, the
> "closedness"
> > >>> would be by policy, not by technological feasibility.
> > >>>
> > >>> 2. "Rock Box" is an example of a third-party software
> > solution to
> > >>> some
> > >>> accessibility issues that can be loaded onto an iPod. Assuming
> > >>> that the original iPod interface can be restored
> somehow, doesn't
> > >>> that make the iPod almost like a PC, able to run with
> or without a
> > >>> screen reader, not like a product
> > >>>
> > >>> ***********
> > >>> Jim Tobias
> > >>> Inclusive Technologies
> > >>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> > >>> skype jimtobias
> > >>> www.inclusive.com
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> From: Randy Marsden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:46 PM
> > >>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee; TEITAC self contained/
> > >>> closed products subcommittee
> > >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
> > >>>
> > >>> My iPod description given in emails yesterday is one
> such example.
> > >>>
> > >>> -Randy
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > >>> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > >>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:55:58 -0500
> > >>> To: "'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'"
> > >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC Web/Software
> > >>> Subcommittee'"
> > >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > >>> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> In the discussion of closed products, we seem to be
> converging on
> > >>>> the opinion that "closed" is a characteristic, not a
> > category. In this
> > >>>> context,
> > >>>> software has been mentioned as potentially closed.
> Can someone
> > >>>> please give me an example, or a further explanation, of what
> > >>>> closed
> > software
> > >>>> might be?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ***********
> > >>>> Jim Tobias
> > >>>> Inclusive Technologies
> > >>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> > >>>> skype jimtobias
> > >>>> www.inclusive.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>>

Previous message | Next message

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Jan 17 2007 7:05 AM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

Previous message | Next message

From: David Poehlman
Date: Wed, Jan 17 2007 8:50 AM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

Hi Greg and all,

On the del pdas used by humanware for trekker/maesro, there are only
a few fixed controls and they are mechanical. Tthee touch screen is
overlayed with a sleve containing a mechanicall keyboard which fits
precicely over the display and thuus can be used to controll the
device.. In this case though, the humanware software takes over the
pda so that the overlay correspponds to ffunctiionality pertaining to
the software used to drive the device.

What I would propose is an overlay which would pprovide tactation but
not necessarily be mechanical. I read in a recent faq though tht it
is not possible to use the device with gloves though so I'm guessing
your skin has to come into contact with it.

On Jan 17, 2007, at 8:08 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

For the most part, tactilely discernable controls are mechanical
including
flat membrane panels with tactile markers. There are exceptions like a
glass control panel where the controls are painted on and tactile
markers
are provided.

On the iphone, there are a limited number of fixed controls (volume,
'silent', home button, etc.) but most of the controls are on the
touchscreen. If full control were possible from the tactile controls
then
it would pass. Also, it has Bluetooth and may accept a Bluetooth
keyboard
or keypad. That would require reprogramming though.

This all gets back to the definition of closed and how we want to use
that
term though.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of David Poehlman
> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 8:34 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Cc: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "touchscreens"
>
> I don't think tactilly discernable means mechanical.
>
> On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:27 PM, Randy Marsden (Home) wrote:
>
> It's premature to conclude anything about the iPhone until we
> actually see one and know more about the OS. But generally
> speaking, a touch interface with back-lit LCD should be MORE
> accessible to people with low vision, prosthetics, arthritis,
> or mobility impairments because on-screen buttons at least
> have the potential of being made larger, displayed with
> greater contrast, be scan-able, etc. (ie. More accessible
> than other devices with small physical buttons). Touch
> screens also usually require less force than mechanical
> buttons to activate.
>
> The down-side of a touch interface is that a person who is
> blind can't feel the controls before activating them (a
> requirement in the present 508). So, a touchscreen interface
> is an example of something that actually helps one group of
> people with disabilities while making it difficult for another.
> We're struggling with touch interfaces right now on the
> Hardware Sub- con.
> The present version of Section 508 appears to be heavily
> weighted toward people who can't see, to the potential
> detriment of other types of disabilities. Some sort of
> functional split in the requirements seems needed.
>
> -Randy
>>
>> From: "Tom Brett" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:01:09 -0500
>> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'" <teitac-
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>>
>
>> In addition to the blind customers, people with low vision,
>> prosthetics,
>> arthritis and other mobility problems will not be able to operate
>> this unit.
>> While it is a marvel of technology it appears to be limited
> to only
>> a certain
>> class of persons
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom Brett
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> Lazzaro, Joe
>> (ITD)
>> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:35 PM
>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>>
>>
>>
>> From what I hear, mostly from the "Blind Confidential" blog, the
>> iPhone may be
>> inaccessible for blind users. I've also heard that the phone runs
>> OS X, which
>> could be beneficial if true. Maybe the phone will support
>> VoiceOver? But the
>> initial rumblings I'm hearing are that the ipPhone may be
>> inaccessible,
>> especially for blind consumers.
>>
>>
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Joe Lazzaro
>> Manager: Assistive Technology Group
>> Information Technology Division
>> Commonwealth of Massachusetts
>> One Ashburton Place
>> Room 1601
>> Boston, MA 02108
>> Voice: 617-626-4410
>> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Web: www.Mass.gov/ITD
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Gregg
>> Vanderheiden
>> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:32 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC self contained/
>> closed products
>> subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>>
>> I think this is a good example of how we need to think of 'closed'
>> as a
>> condition - not as a type of software or hardware.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Anyone know more about the iphone? They said it was based
> on OS X
>> but it
>> could be just a small version of it (like windows and windows
>> mobile).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>> Randy
>>> Marsden (Home)
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:32 AM
>>> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee; 'TEITAC
>>> Web/Software
>>> Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
>>>
>>> Jim - I see this is a repost from the same email sent on Dec
>>> 22nd. My
>>> apologies for not responding back then.
>>>
>>> We're starting to split hairs here, but technically I think the
>>> iPod could be
>>> characterized as follows:
>>> 1. The iPod hardware is an example of open hardware, since there
>>> is a port
>>> that allows 3rd party software to be loaded on the device (ie.
>>> Rock Box).
>>> 2. The iPod operating system as shipped from Appleis an
> example of
>>> closed
>>> software, since it does not allow 3rd party application software
>>> or assistive
>>> technology software to be loaded inaddition to the existing
>>> software that it
>>> ships with.
>>>
>>> I think you're accurate in drawing the analogy between the iPod
>>> hardware and
>>> PC hardware. Loading Rock Box on an iPod is analogous to
>>> purchasing a PC
>>> with Windows loaded, but then reformatting the hard drive and
>>> loading Linux
>>> instead. Same PC - different operating systems. So, in terms of
>>> definition,
>>> I think you would still have to characterize the iPod's software
>>> as closed
>>> (but its hardware as open).
>>>
>>> So what defines a product? Its hardware, its software, or the
>>> combination of
>>> both? When the federal government purchases iPods for their
>>> employees to use
>>> for training purposes, I assume they are thinking of the latter.
>>> If a
>>> Department bids out and receives 500 computer running Windows,
>>> they don't
>>> expect some people to remove Windows and load Linux instead (or
>>> visa versa).
>>> With respect to the iPod, they probably have little instruction
>>> manuals
>>> written that say things like:
>>>
>>> "To listen to module 1 of the training, navigate to the Music
>>> menu, select
>>> Playlists, and choose 'Module 1'".
>>>
>>> I doubt there is an addendum to the manual that says:
>>>
>>> "If you have a disability, back up all the content of the iPod,
>>> load the new
>>> operating system called Rock Box by connecting a USB cable from
>>> your iPod to
>>> your computer that is running the Rock Box installation software
>>> (which
>>> you'll need to obtain on-line), restore the content (and try to
>>> keep it in
>>> the same order), and then find Module 1. And by the way, since
>>> there is no
>>> text-to-speech engine that comes with Rock Box, you will need to
>>> find 'Module
>>> 1" by listening to each letter pronounced "m", "o", "d", and so on.
>>>
>>> This just doesn't seem like an equitable solution for people with
>>> disabilities. If the government hands them an iPod for training,
>>> it should
>>> be accessible as-is, or with the addition of AT. Right now it
>>> isn't, so I
>>> would call that "closed" (ie. Not accessible on its own, and not
>>> possible to
>>> add AT that makes it accessible to people with disabilities).
>>>
>>> -Randy
>>>
>>> PS: Maybe the repost is because of the recent
> announcement of the
>>> iPhone,
>>> which is also an iPod, and running OS X, which (I think)
> is open, and
>>> completely changes my iPod argument! ;-) See how fast technology
>>> changes...?
>>>
>>>
>>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Reply-To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:01:39 -0500
>>> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC self contained/
>>> closed products
>>> subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Randy wrote, regarding iPods that it's an example of "closed
>>>> software", even
>>>> given David Poehlman's identification of "Rock Box" as alternative
>>>> interface. I don't see how this is so.
>>>>
>>>> 1. iPods are designed to accept software upgrades from Apple, so
>>>> they are
>>>> not "closed" in that aspect, at least. Apple could somehow lock
>>>> out all
>>>> software changes that did not come thorough Apple
> themselves, but
>>>> they
>>>> appear not to have done that. Even in that case, the
>>>> "closedness" would be
>>>> by policy, not by technological feasibility.
>>>>
>>>> 2. "Rock Box" is an example of a third-party software
> solution to
>>>> some
>>>> accessibility issues that can be loaded onto an iPod. Assuming
>>>> that the
>>>> original iPod interface can be restored somehow, doesn't that
>>>> make the iPod
>>>> almost like a PC, able to run with or without a screen reader,
>>>> not like a
>>>> product
>>>>
>>>> ***********
>>>> Jim Tobias
>>>> Inclusive Technologies
>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
>>>> skype jimtobias
>>>> www.inclusive.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: Randy Marsden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:46 PM
>>>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee; TEITAC self contained/
>>>> closed products
>>>> subcommittee
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
>>>>
>>>> My iPod description given in emails yesterday is one such example.
>>>>
>>>> -Randy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:55:58 -0500
>>>> To: "'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'"
>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC Web/Software
>>>> Subcommittee'"
>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> In the discussion of closed products, we seem to be converging
>>>>> on the
>>>>> opinion that "closed" is a characteristic, not a
> category. In this
>>>>> context,
>>>>> software has been mentioned as potentially closed. Can someone
>>>>> please give
>>>>> me an example, or a further explanation, of what closed
> software
>>>>> might be?
>>>>>
>>>>> ***********
>>>>> Jim Tobias
>>>>> Inclusive Technologies
>>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
>>>>> skype jimtobias
>>>>> www.inclusive.com
>>>>>
>>>>>

Previous message | Next message

From: David Poehlman
Date: Wed, Jan 17 2007 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

Previous message | Next message

From: Rex Lint
Date: Fri, Jan 19 2007 7:30 AM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

If a "blue tooth keyboard" and reprogramming could be considered to be AT,
why don't these "accommodations" constitute 508 accessibility? Can a
vendor, in this case, claim "equivalent facilitation?" Don't we expect and
permit AT compatibility to be solutions for inaccessibility? If the keyboard
makes it too big, maybe the "fundamental alteration" excuse applies until
some AT that is [smaller/more accessible] is invented. I think, since
equivalent facilitation and fundamental alteration are parts of 508, if the
device were compatible with AT that it WOULD meet the definition of 508
accessible.

I think Bluetooth has the potential to be a major enabler for accessibility,
at least my mind runs wild just thinking about possibilities. Then again,
it often runs wild anyway.

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 Brett, Thomas
F
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:20 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Cc: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] [teitac-websoftware]
[teitac-closed]"touchscreens"

Gregg said:

"it has Bluetooth and may accept a Bluetooth keyboard or keypad."

Adding additional equipment to this device could result in creating an
Iphone that is accessible but that would not mean that the Iphone,
itself, meets the current 508 standards. If reprogramming is possible to
allow a keypad or keyboard to be attached to the device, that would be a
accommodation. In addition the customer would be required to carry
additional equipment so the device can be used.

Tom Brett,
2026061206
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:09 AM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Cc: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "touchscreens"

For the most part, tactilely discernable controls are mechanical
including
flat membrane panels with tactile markers. There are exceptions like a
glass control panel where the controls are painted on and tactile
markers
are provided.

On the iphone, there are a limited number of fixed controls (volume,
'silent', home button, etc.) but most of the controls are on the
touchscreen. If full control were possible from the tactile controls
then
it would pass. Also, it has Bluetooth and may accept a Bluetooth
keyboard
or keypad. That would require reprogramming though.

This all gets back to the definition of closed and how we want to use
that
term though.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of David Poehlman
> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 8:34 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Cc: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "touchscreens"
>
> I don't think tactilly discernable means mechanical.
>
> On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:27 PM, Randy Marsden (Home) wrote:
>
> It's premature to conclude anything about the iPhone until we
> actually see one and know more about the OS. But generally
> speaking, a touch interface with back-lit LCD should be MORE
> accessible to people with low vision, prosthetics, arthritis,
> or mobility impairments because on-screen buttons at least
> have the potential of being made larger, displayed with
> greater contrast, be scan-able, etc. (ie. More accessible
> than other devices with small physical buttons). Touch
> screens also usually require less force than mechanical
> buttons to activate.
>
> The down-side of a touch interface is that a person who is
> blind can't feel the controls before activating them (a
> requirement in the present 508). So, a touchscreen interface
> is an example of something that actually helps one group of
> people with disabilities while making it difficult for another.
> We're struggling with touch interfaces right now on the
> Hardware Sub- con.
> The present version of Section 508 appears to be heavily
> weighted toward people who can't see, to the potential
> detriment of other types of disabilities. Some sort of
> functional split in the requirements seems needed.
>
> -Randy
> >
> > From: "Tom Brett" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:01:09 -0500
> > To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'" <teitac-
> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
> >
>
> > In addition to the blind customers, people with low vision,
> > prosthetics,
> > arthritis and other mobility problems will not be able to operate
> > this unit.
> > While it is a marvel of technology it appears to be limited
> to only
> > a certain
> > class of persons
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom Brett
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > Lazzaro, Joe
> > (ITD)
> > Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:35 PM
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
> >
> >
> >
> > From what I hear, mostly from the "Blind Confidential" blog, the
> > iPhone may be
> > inaccessible for blind users. I've also heard that the phone runs
> > OS X, which
> > could be beneficial if true. Maybe the phone will support
> > VoiceOver? But the
> > initial rumblings I'm hearing are that the ipPhone may be
> > inaccessible,
> > especially for blind consumers.
> >
> >
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Joe Lazzaro
> > Manager: Assistive Technology Group
> > Information Technology Division
> > Commonwealth of Massachusetts
> > One Ashburton Place
> > Room 1601
> > Boston, MA 02108
> > Voice: 617-626-4410
> > Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > Web: www.Mass.gov/ITD
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Gregg
> > Vanderheiden
> > Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:32 PM
> > To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC self contained/
> > closed products
> > subcommittee'
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
> >
> > I think this is a good example of how we need to think of 'closed'
> > as a
> > condition - not as a type of software or hardware.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Anyone know more about the iphone? They said it was based
> on OS X
> > but it
> > could be just a small version of it (like windows and windows
> > mobile).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> >> Randy
> >> Marsden (Home)
> >> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:32 AM
> >> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee; 'TEITAC
> >> Web/Software
> >> Subcommittee'
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
> >>
> >> Jim - I see this is a repost from the same email sent on Dec
> >> 22nd. My
> >> apologies for not responding back then.
> >>
> >> We're starting to split hairs here, but technically I think the
> >> iPod could be
> >> characterized as follows:
> >> 1. The iPod hardware is an example of open hardware, since there
> >> is a port
> >> that allows 3rd party software to be loaded on the device (ie.
> >> Rock Box).
> >> 2. The iPod operating system as shipped from Appleis an
> example of
> >> closed
> >> software, since it does not allow 3rd party application software
> >> or assistive
> >> technology software to be loaded inaddition to the existing
> >> software that it
> >> ships with.
> >>
> >> I think you're accurate in drawing the analogy between the iPod
> >> hardware and
> >> PC hardware. Loading Rock Box on an iPod is analogous to
> >> purchasing a PC
> >> with Windows loaded, but then reformatting the hard drive and
> >> loading Linux
> >> instead. Same PC - different operating systems. So, in terms of
> >> definition,
> >> I think you would still have to characterize the iPod's software
> >> as closed
> >> (but its hardware as open).
> >>
> >> So what defines a product? Its hardware, its software, or the
> >> combination of
> >> both? When the federal government purchases iPods for their
> >> employees to use
> >> for training purposes, I assume they are thinking of the latter.
> >> If a
> >> Department bids out and receives 500 computer running Windows,
> >> they don't
> >> expect some people to remove Windows and load Linux instead (or
> >> visa versa).
> >> With respect to the iPod, they probably have little instruction
> >> manuals
> >> written that say things like:
> >>
> >> "To listen to module 1 of the training, navigate to the Music
> >> menu, select
> >> Playlists, and choose 'Module 1'".
> >>
> >> I doubt there is an addendum to the manual that says:
> >>
> >> "If you have a disability, back up all the content of the iPod,
> >> load the new
> >> operating system called Rock Box by connecting a USB cable from
> >> your iPod to
> >> your computer that is running the Rock Box installation software
> >> (which
> >> you'll need to obtain on-line), restore the content (and try to
> >> keep it in
> >> the same order), and then find Module 1. And by the way, since
> >> there is no
> >> text-to-speech engine that comes with Rock Box, you will need to
> >> find 'Module
> >> 1" by listening to each letter pronounced "m", "o", "d", and so on.
> >>
> >> This just doesn't seem like an equitable solution for people with
> >> disabilities. If the government hands them an iPod for training,
> >> it should
> >> be accessible as-is, or with the addition of AT. Right now it
> >> isn't, so I
> >> would call that "closed" (ie. Not accessible on its own, and not
> >> possible to
> >> add AT that makes it accessible to people with disabilities).
> >>
> >> -Randy
> >>
> >> PS: Maybe the repost is because of the recent
> announcement of the
> >> iPhone,
> >> which is also an iPod, and running OS X, which (I think)
> is open, and
> >> completely changes my iPod argument! ;-) See how fast technology
> >> changes...?
> >>
> >>
> >> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Reply-To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:01:39 -0500
> >> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC self contained/
> >> closed products
> >> subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Randy wrote, regarding iPods that it's an example of "closed
> >>> software", even
> >>> given David Poehlman's identification of "Rock Box" as alternative
> >>> interface. I don't see how this is so.
> >>>
> >>> 1. iPods are designed to accept software upgrades from Apple, so
> >>> they are
> >>> not "closed" in that aspect, at least. Apple could somehow lock
> >>> out all
> >>> software changes that did not come thorough Apple
> themselves, but
> >>> they
> >>> appear not to have done that. Even in that case, the
> >>> "closedness" would be
> >>> by policy, not by technological feasibility.
> >>>
> >>> 2. "Rock Box" is an example of a third-party software
> solution to
> >>> some
> >>> accessibility issues that can be loaded onto an iPod. Assuming
> >>> that the
> >>> original iPod interface can be restored somehow, doesn't that
> >>> make the iPod
> >>> almost like a PC, able to run with or without a screen reader,
> >>> not like a
> >>> product
> >>>
> >>> ***********
> >>> Jim Tobias
> >>> Inclusive Technologies
> >>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> >>> skype jimtobias
> >>> www.inclusive.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Randy Marsden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:46 PM
> >>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee; TEITAC self contained/
> >>> closed products
> >>> subcommittee
> >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
> >>>
> >>> My iPod description given in emails yesterday is one such example.
> >>>
> >>> -Randy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:55:58 -0500
> >>> To: "'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'"
> >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC Web/Software
> >>> Subcommittee'"
> >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In the discussion of closed products, we seem to be converging
> >>>> on the
> >>>> opinion that "closed" is a characteristic, not a
> category. In this
> >>>> context,
> >>>> software has been mentioned as potentially closed. Can someone
> >>>> please give
> >>>> me an example, or a further explanation, of what closed
> software
> >>>> might be?
> >>>>
> >>>> ***********
> >>>> Jim Tobias
> >>>> Inclusive Technologies
> >>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> >>>> skype jimtobias
> >>>> www.inclusive.com
> >>>>
> >>>>

Previous message | Next message

From: Rex Lint
Date: Fri, Jan 19 2007 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

Previous message | Next message

From: Brett, Thomas F
Date: Fri, Jan 19 2007 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

Fundamental Alteration would be a valid excuse, maybe even commercial
non-availability, and wouldn't negate the ability for a Federal Agency
to purchase such a device. However you would be providing an
accommodation to the person with disabilities because the device is not
508 compliant.

The agency prepares a list of business requirements that causes it to
select the Iphone (widget) as the device of choice. The agency
determines that there is no other device that meets the business
requirements except for the widget. The agency determines that the
widget does not meet the Section 508 Standards on accessibility but need
to purchase the device for business reasons. The agency will document
(or should) that the purchase of this device meets the business needs,
it does not meet 508 standards but in order to meet the standards would
require a fundamental alteration.

Case closed.

However this widget is assigned a person with a disability who is unable
to operate it because it does not meet the Section 508 standards. At
this point the agency would need to supply an accommodation to allow
this person to work. The accommodation could take the form of an add
on or a change in work environment. Any way you look at it the device
is still not 508 compliant.

Tom Brett,
2026061206
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Rex
Lint
Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 9:24 AM
To: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'; 'TEITAC
Web/Software Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware]
[teitac-hardware][teitac-closed]"touchscreens"

If a "blue tooth keyboard" and reprogramming could be considered to be
AT,
why don't these "accommodations" constitute 508 accessibility? Can a
vendor, in this case, claim "equivalent facilitation?" Don't we expect
and
permit AT compatibility to be solutions for inaccessibility? If the
keyboard
makes it too big, maybe the "fundamental alteration" excuse applies
until
some AT that is [smaller/more accessible] is invented. I think, since
equivalent facilitation and fundamental alteration are parts of 508, if
the
device were compatible with AT that it WOULD meet the definition of 508
accessible.

I think Bluetooth has the potential to be a major enabler for
accessibility,
at least my mind runs wild just thinking about possibilities. Then
again,
it often runs wild anyway.

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 Brett,
Thomas
F
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:20 AM
To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
Cc: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] [teitac-websoftware]
[teitac-closed]"touchscreens"

Gregg said:

"it has Bluetooth and may accept a Bluetooth keyboard or keypad."

Adding additional equipment to this device could result in creating an
Iphone that is accessible but that would not mean that the Iphone,
itself, meets the current 508 standards. If reprogramming is possible to
allow a keypad or keyboard to be attached to the device, that would be a
accommodation. In addition the customer would be required to carry
additional equipment so the device can be used.

Tom Brett,
2026061206
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:09 AM
To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
Cc: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "touchscreens"

For the most part, tactilely discernable controls are mechanical
including
flat membrane panels with tactile markers. There are exceptions like a
glass control panel where the controls are painted on and tactile
markers
are provided.

On the iphone, there are a limited number of fixed controls (volume,
'silent', home button, etc.) but most of the controls are on the
touchscreen. If full control were possible from the tactile controls
then
it would pass. Also, it has Bluetooth and may accept a Bluetooth
keyboard
or keypad. That would require reprogramming though.

This all gets back to the definition of closed and how we want to use
that
term though.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of David Poehlman
> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 8:34 PM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Cc: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "touchscreens"
>
> I don't think tactilly discernable means mechanical.
>
> On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:27 PM, Randy Marsden (Home) wrote:
>
> It's premature to conclude anything about the iPhone until we
> actually see one and know more about the OS. But generally
> speaking, a touch interface with back-lit LCD should be MORE
> accessible to people with low vision, prosthetics, arthritis,
> or mobility impairments because on-screen buttons at least
> have the potential of being made larger, displayed with
> greater contrast, be scan-able, etc. (ie. More accessible
> than other devices with small physical buttons). Touch
> screens also usually require less force than mechanical
> buttons to activate.
>
> The down-side of a touch interface is that a person who is
> blind can't feel the controls before activating them (a
> requirement in the present 508). So, a touchscreen interface
> is an example of something that actually helps one group of
> people with disabilities while making it difficult for another.
> We're struggling with touch interfaces right now on the
> Hardware Sub- con.
> The present version of Section 508 appears to be heavily
> weighted toward people who can't see, to the potential
> detriment of other types of disabilities. Some sort of
> functional split in the requirements seems needed.
>
> -Randy
> >
> > From: "Tom Brett" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:01:09 -0500
> > To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'" <teitac-
> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
> >
>
> > In addition to the blind customers, people with low vision,
> > prosthetics,
> > arthritis and other mobility problems will not be able to operate
> > this unit.
> > While it is a marvel of technology it appears to be limited
> to only
> > a certain
> > class of persons
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom Brett
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > Lazzaro, Joe
> > (ITD)
> > Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:35 PM
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
> >
> >
> >
> > From what I hear, mostly from the "Blind Confidential" blog, the
> > iPhone may be
> > inaccessible for blind users. I've also heard that the phone runs
> > OS X, which
> > could be beneficial if true. Maybe the phone will support
> > VoiceOver? But the
> > initial rumblings I'm hearing are that the ipPhone may be
> > inaccessible,
> > especially for blind consumers.
> >
> >
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Joe Lazzaro
> > Manager: Assistive Technology Group
> > Information Technology Division
> > Commonwealth of Massachusetts
> > One Ashburton Place
> > Room 1601
> > Boston, MA 02108
> > Voice: 617-626-4410
> > Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > Web: www.Mass.gov/ITD
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Gregg
> > Vanderheiden
> > Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:32 PM
> > To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC self contained/
> > closed products
> > subcommittee'
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
> >
> > I think this is a good example of how we need to think of 'closed'
> > as a
> > condition - not as a type of software or hardware.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Anyone know more about the iphone? They said it was based
> on OS X
> > but it
> > could be just a small version of it (like windows and windows
> > mobile).
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> >> Randy
> >> Marsden (Home)
> >> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:32 AM
> >> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee; 'TEITAC
> >> Web/Software
> >> Subcommittee'
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
> >>
> >> Jim - I see this is a repost from the same email sent on Dec
> >> 22nd. My
> >> apologies for not responding back then.
> >>
> >> We're starting to split hairs here, but technically I think the
> >> iPod could be
> >> characterized as follows:
> >> 1. The iPod hardware is an example of open hardware, since there
> >> is a port
> >> that allows 3rd party software to be loaded on the device (ie.
> >> Rock Box).
> >> 2. The iPod operating system as shipped from Appleis an
> example of
> >> closed
> >> software, since it does not allow 3rd party application software
> >> or assistive
> >> technology software to be loaded inaddition to the existing
> >> software that it
> >> ships with.
> >>
> >> I think you're accurate in drawing the analogy between the iPod
> >> hardware and
> >> PC hardware. Loading Rock Box on an iPod is analogous to
> >> purchasing a PC
> >> with Windows loaded, but then reformatting the hard drive and
> >> loading Linux
> >> instead. Same PC - different operating systems. So, in terms of
> >> definition,
> >> I think you would still have to characterize the iPod's software
> >> as closed
> >> (but its hardware as open).
> >>
> >> So what defines a product? Its hardware, its software, or the
> >> combination of
> >> both? When the federal government purchases iPods for their
> >> employees to use
> >> for training purposes, I assume they are thinking of the latter.
> >> If a
> >> Department bids out and receives 500 computer running Windows,
> >> they don't
> >> expect some people to remove Windows and load Linux instead (or
> >> visa versa).
> >> With respect to the iPod, they probably have little instruction
> >> manuals
> >> written that say things like:
> >>
> >> "To listen to module 1 of the training, navigate to the Music
> >> menu, select
> >> Playlists, and choose 'Module 1'".
> >>
> >> I doubt there is an addendum to the manual that says:
> >>
> >> "If you have a disability, back up all the content of the iPod,
> >> load the new
> >> operating system called Rock Box by connecting a USB cable from
> >> your iPod to
> >> your computer that is running the Rock Box installation software
> >> (which
> >> you'll need to obtain on-line), restore the content (and try to
> >> keep it in
> >> the same order), and then find Module 1. And by the way, since
> >> there is no
> >> text-to-speech engine that comes with Rock Box, you will need to
> >> find 'Module
> >> 1" by listening to each letter pronounced "m", "o", "d", and so on.
> >>
> >> This just doesn't seem like an equitable solution for people with
> >> disabilities. If the government hands them an iPod for training,
> >> it should
> >> be accessible as-is, or with the addition of AT. Right now it
> >> isn't, so I
> >> would call that "closed" (ie. Not accessible on its own, and not
> >> possible to
> >> add AT that makes it accessible to people with disabilities).
> >>
> >> -Randy
> >>
> >> PS: Maybe the repost is because of the recent
> announcement of the
> >> iPhone,
> >> which is also an iPod, and running OS X, which (I think)
> is open, and
> >> completely changes my iPod argument! ;-) See how fast technology
> >> changes...?
> >>
> >>
> >> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Reply-To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:01:39 -0500
> >> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC self contained/
> >> closed products
> >> subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Randy wrote, regarding iPods that it's an example of "closed
> >>> software", even
> >>> given David Poehlman's identification of "Rock Box" as alternative
> >>> interface. I don't see how this is so.
> >>>
> >>> 1. iPods are designed to accept software upgrades from Apple, so
> >>> they are
> >>> not "closed" in that aspect, at least. Apple could somehow lock
> >>> out all
> >>> software changes that did not come thorough Apple
> themselves, but
> >>> they
> >>> appear not to have done that. Even in that case, the
> >>> "closedness" would be
> >>> by policy, not by technological feasibility.
> >>>
> >>> 2. "Rock Box" is an example of a third-party software
> solution to
> >>> some
> >>> accessibility issues that can be loaded onto an iPod. Assuming
> >>> that the
> >>> original iPod interface can be restored somehow, doesn't that
> >>> make the iPod
> >>> almost like a PC, able to run with or without a screen reader,
> >>> not like a
> >>> product
> >>>
> >>> ***********
> >>> Jim Tobias
> >>> Inclusive Technologies
> >>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> >>> skype jimtobias
> >>> www.inclusive.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: Randy Marsden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:46 PM
> >>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee; TEITAC self contained/
> >>> closed products
> >>> subcommittee
> >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
> >>>
> >>> My iPod description given in emails yesterday is one such example.
> >>>
> >>> -Randy
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:55:58 -0500
> >>> To: "'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'"
> >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC Web/Software
> >>> Subcommittee'"
> >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> In the discussion of closed products, we seem to be converging
> >>>> on the
> >>>> opinion that "closed" is a characteristic, not a
> category. In this
> >>>> context,
> >>>> software has been mentioned as potentially closed. Can someone
> >>>> please give
> >>>> me an example, or a further explanation, of what closed
> software
> >>>> might be?
> >>>>
> >>>> ***********
> >>>> Jim Tobias
> >>>> Inclusive Technologies
> >>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> >>>> skype jimtobias
> >>>> www.inclusive.com
> >>>>
> >>>>

Previous message | Next message

From: Brett, Thomas F
Date: Fri, Jan 19 2007 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

Previous message | Next message

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sat, Jan 20 2007 9:30 PM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

Well lets see

To be accessible then you need all information and all control to be
accessible to AT that a user has.

1) If a product can be completely controlled from a Bluetooth keyboard, then
I think the first part is met since there are Bluetooth adapters for
standard keyboards

2) I don't know of any 'Bluetooth text display" adapters or even a Bluetooth
format for presenting the info on all the displays in text that could be fed
to AT. But if there was then it could be fed to existing AT.

So I think the answer is IF ALL FUNCTION could be done from the BT keyboard
interface then PART of the access would be there.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Rex Lint
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 8:24 AM
> To: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee';
> 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware]
> [teitac-hardware][teitac-closed]"touchscreens"
>
> If a "blue tooth keyboard" and reprogramming could be
> considered to be AT, why don't these "accommodations"
> constitute 508 accessibility? Can a vendor, in this case,
> claim "equivalent facilitation?" Don't we expect and permit
> AT compatibility to be solutions for inaccessibility? If the
> keyboard makes it too big, maybe the "fundamental alteration"
> excuse applies until some AT that is [smaller/more
> accessible] is invented. I think, since equivalent
> facilitation and fundamental alteration are parts of 508, if
> the device were compatible with AT that it WOULD meet the
> definition of 508 accessible.
>
> I think Bluetooth has the potential to be a major enabler for
> accessibility, at least my mind runs wild just thinking about
> possibilities. Then again, it often runs wild anyway.
>
> 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
> Brett, Thomas F
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:20 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Cc: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] [teitac-websoftware]
> [teitac-closed]"touchscreens"
>
> Gregg said:
>
> "it has Bluetooth and may accept a Bluetooth keyboard or keypad."
>
> Adding additional equipment to this device could result in
> creating an Iphone that is accessible but that would not mean
> that the Iphone, itself, meets the current 508 standards. If
> reprogramming is possible to allow a keypad or keyboard to be
> attached to the device, that would be a accommodation. In
> addition the customer would be required to carry additional
> equipment so the device can be used.
>
>
>
> Tom Brett,
> 2026061206
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:09 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Cc: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "touchscreens"
>
> For the most part, tactilely discernable controls are
> mechanical including
> flat membrane panels with tactile markers. There are
> exceptions like a
> glass control panel where the controls are painted on and
> tactile markers are provided.
>
> On the iphone, there are a limited number of fixed controls
> (volume, 'silent', home button, etc.) but most of the
> controls are on the touchscreen. If full control were
> possible from the tactile controls then it would pass. Also,
> it has Bluetooth and may accept a Bluetooth keyboard or
> keypad. That would require reprogramming though.
>
>
> This all gets back to the definition of closed and how we
> want to use that term though.
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of David
> > Poehlman
> > Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 8:34 PM
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Cc: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "touchscreens"
> >
> > I don't think tactilly discernable means mechanical.
> >
> > On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:27 PM, Randy Marsden (Home) wrote:
> >
> > It's premature to conclude anything about the iPhone until
> we actually
> > see one and know more about the OS. But generally
> speaking, a touch
> > interface with back-lit LCD should be MORE accessible to
> people with
> > low vision, prosthetics, arthritis, or mobility impairments because
> > on-screen buttons at least have the potential of being made larger,
> > displayed with greater contrast, be scan-able, etc. (ie. More
> > accessible than other devices with small physical buttons). Touch
> > screens also usually require less force than mechanical buttons to
> > activate.
> >
> > The down-side of a touch interface is that a person who is
> blind can't
> > feel the controls before activating them (a requirement in
> the present
> > 508). So, a touchscreen interface is an example of something that
> > actually helps one group of people with disabilities while
> making it
> > difficult for another.
> > We're struggling with touch interfaces right now on the
> Hardware Sub-
> > con.
> > The present version of Section 508 appears to be heavily weighted
> > toward people who can't see, to the potential detriment of
> other types
> > of disabilities. Some sort of functional split in the requirements
> > seems needed.
> >
> > -Randy
> > >
> > > From: "Tom Brett" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > > Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > > Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:01:09 -0500
> > > To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'" <teitac-
> > > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed]
> "closed software"
> > >
> >
> > > In addition to the blind customers, people with low vision,
> > > prosthetics, arthritis and other mobility problems will
> not be able
> > > to operate this unit.
> > > While it is a marvel of technology it appears to be limited
> > to only
> > > a certain
> > > class of persons
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Tom Brett
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > > Lazzaro, Joe
> > > (ITD)
> > > Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:35 PM
> > > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed
> software"
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From what I hear, mostly from the "Blind Confidential" blog, the
> > > iPhone may be inaccessible for blind users. I've also
> heard that the
> > > phone runs OS X, which could be beneficial if true. Maybe
> the phone
> > > will support VoiceOver? But the initial rumblings I'm hearing are
> > > that the ipPhone may be inaccessible, especially for blind
> > > consumers.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Joe
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Joe Lazzaro
> > > Manager: Assistive Technology Group
> > > Information Technology Division
> > > Commonwealth of Massachusetts
> > > One Ashburton Place
> > > Room 1601
> > > Boston, MA 02108
> > > Voice: 617-626-4410
> > > Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > Web: www.Mass.gov/ITD
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> > Behalf Of Gregg
> > > Vanderheiden
> > > Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:32 PM
> > > To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC self contained/
> > > closed products subcommittee'
> > > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed
> software"
> > >
> > > I think this is a good example of how we need to think of 'closed'
> > > as a
> > > condition - not as a type of software or hardware.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Anyone know more about the iphone? They said it was based
> > on OS X
> > > but it
> > > could be just a small version of it (like windows and windows
> > > mobile).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Gregg
> > > -- ------------------------------
> > > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > >> Randy Marsden (Home)
> > >> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:32 AM
> > >> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee; 'TEITAC
> > >> Web/Software Subcommittee'
> > >> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed]
> "closed software"
> > >>
> > >> Jim - I see this is a repost from the same email sent on
> Dec 22nd.
> > >> My apologies for not responding back then.
> > >>
> > >> We're starting to split hairs here, but technically I think the
> > >> iPod could be characterized as follows:
> > >> 1. The iPod hardware is an example of open hardware,
> since there is
> > >> a port that allows 3rd party software to be loaded on the device
> > >> (ie.
> > >> Rock Box).
> > >> 2. The iPod operating system as shipped from Appleis an
> > example of
> > >> closed
> > >> software, since it does not allow 3rd party application
> software or
> > >> assistive technology software to be loaded inaddition to the
> > >> existing software that it ships with.
> > >>
> > >> I think you're accurate in drawing the analogy between the iPod
> > >> hardware and PC hardware. Loading Rock Box on an iPod
> is analogous
> > >> to purchasing a PC with Windows loaded, but then
> reformatting the
> > >> hard drive and loading Linux instead. Same PC - different
> > >> operating systems. So, in terms of definition, I think
> you would
> > >> still have to characterize the iPod's software as closed
> (but its
> > >> hardware as open).
> > >>
> > >> So what defines a product? Its hardware, its software, or the
> > >> combination of both? When the federal government
> purchases iPods
> > >> for their employees to use for training purposes, I
> assume they are
> > >> thinking of the latter.
> > >> If a
> > >> Department bids out and receives 500 computer running
> Windows, they
> > >> don't expect some people to remove Windows and load
> Linux instead
> > >> (or visa versa).
> > >> With respect to the iPod, they probably have little instruction
> > >> manuals written that say things like:
> > >>
> > >> "To listen to module 1 of the training, navigate to the
> Music menu,
> > >> select Playlists, and choose 'Module 1'".
> > >>
> > >> I doubt there is an addendum to the manual that says:
> > >>
> > >> "If you have a disability, back up all the content of the iPod,
> > >> load the new operating system called Rock Box by
> connecting a USB
> > >> cable from your iPod to your computer that is running
> the Rock Box
> > >> installation software (which you'll need to obtain on-line),
> > >> restore the content (and try to keep it in the same order), and
> > >> then find Module 1. And by the way, since there is no
> > >> text-to-speech engine that comes with Rock Box, you will need to
> > >> find 'Module 1" by listening to each letter pronounced "m", "o",
> > >> "d", and so on.
> > >>
> > >> This just doesn't seem like an equitable solution for
> people with
> > >> disabilities. If the government hands them an iPod for
> training,
> > >> it should be accessible as-is, or with the addition of
> AT. Right
> > >> now it isn't, so I would call that "closed" (ie. Not
> accessible on
> > >> its own, and not possible to add AT that makes it accessible to
> > >> people with disabilities).
> > >>
> > >> -Randy
> > >>
> > >> PS: Maybe the repost is because of the recent
> > announcement of the
> > >> iPhone,
> > >> which is also an iPod, and running OS X, which (I think)
> > is open, and
> > >> completely changes my iPod argument! ;-) See how fast
> technology
> > >> changes...?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > >> Reply-To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
> > >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > >> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:01:39 -0500
> > >> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
> > >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC self contained/
> > >> closed products subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > >> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-websoftware]
> "closed software"
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> Randy wrote, regarding iPods that it's an example of "closed
> > >>> software", even given David Poehlman's identification of "Rock
> > >>> Box" as alternative interface. I don't see how this is so.
> > >>>
> > >>> 1. iPods are designed to accept software upgrades from
> Apple, so
> > >>> they are not "closed" in that aspect, at least. Apple could
> > >>> somehow lock out all software changes that did not come
> thorough
> > >>> Apple
> > themselves, but
> > >>> they
> > >>> appear not to have done that. Even in that case, the
> "closedness"
> > >>> would be by policy, not by technological feasibility.
> > >>>
> > >>> 2. "Rock Box" is an example of a third-party software
> > solution to
> > >>> some
> > >>> accessibility issues that can be loaded onto an iPod. Assuming
> > >>> that the original iPod interface can be restored
> somehow, doesn't
> > >>> that make the iPod almost like a PC, able to run with
> or without a
> > >>> screen reader, not like a product
> > >>>
> > >>> ***********
> > >>> Jim Tobias
> > >>> Inclusive Technologies
> > >>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> > >>> skype jimtobias
> > >>> www.inclusive.com
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> From: Randy Marsden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> > >>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:46 PM
> > >>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee; TEITAC self contained/
> > >>> closed products subcommittee
> > >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
> > >>>
> > >>> My iPod description given in emails yesterday is one
> such example.
> > >>>
> > >>> -Randy
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > >>> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > >>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:55:58 -0500
> > >>> To: "'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'"
> > >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC Web/Software
> > >>> Subcommittee'"
> > >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > >>> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> In the discussion of closed products, we seem to be
> converging on
> > >>>> the opinion that "closed" is a characteristic, not a
> > category. In this
> > >>>> context,
> > >>>> software has been mentioned as potentially closed.
> Can someone
> > >>>> please give me an example, or a further explanation, of what
> > >>>> closed
> > software
> > >>>> might be?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> ***********
> > >>>> Jim Tobias
> > >>>> Inclusive Technologies
> > >>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> > >>>> skype jimtobias
> > >>>> www.inclusive.com
> > >>>>
> > >>>>

Previous message | Next message

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sat, Jan 20 2007 9:45 PM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

Previous message | Next message

From: David Poehlman
Date: Sun, Jan 21 2007 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

I gott a bbluetooth braille display, does that count?

On Jan 20, 2007, at 11:24 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

Well lets see

To be accessible then you need all information and all control to be
accessible to AT that a user has.

1) If a product can be completely controlled from a Bluetooth
keyboard, then
I think the first part is met since there are Bluetooth adapters for
standard keyboards

2) I don't know of any 'Bluetooth text display" adapters or even a
Bluetooth
format for presenting the info on all the displays in text that could
be fed
to AT. But if there was then it could be fed to existing AT.

So I think the answer is IF ALL FUNCTION could be done from the BT
keyboard
interface then PART of the access would be there.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Rex Lint
> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 8:24 AM
> To: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee';
> 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware]
> [teitac-hardware][teitac-closed]"touchscreens"
>
> If a "blue tooth keyboard" and reprogramming could be
> considered to be AT, why don't these "accommodations"
> constitute 508 accessibility? Can a vendor, in this case,
> claim "equivalent facilitation?" Don't we expect and permit
> AT compatibility to be solutions for inaccessibility? If the
> keyboard makes it too big, maybe the "fundamental alteration"
> excuse applies until some AT that is [smaller/more
> accessible] is invented. I think, since equivalent
> facilitation and fundamental alteration are parts of 508, if
> the device were compatible with AT that it WOULD meet the
> definition of 508 accessible.
>
> I think Bluetooth has the potential to be a major enabler for
> accessibility, at least my mind runs wild just thinking about
> possibilities. Then again, it often runs wild anyway.
>
> 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
> Brett, Thomas F
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:20 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Cc: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] [teitac-websoftware]
> [teitac-closed]"touchscreens"
>
> Gregg said:
>
> "it has Bluetooth and may accept a Bluetooth keyboard or keypad."
>
> Adding additional equipment to this device could result in
> creating an Iphone that is accessible but that would not mean
> that the Iphone, itself, meets the current 508 standards. If
> reprogramming is possible to allow a keypad or keyboard to be
> attached to the device, that would be a accommodation. In
> addition the customer would be required to carry additional
> equipment so the device can be used.
>
>
>
> Tom Brett,
> 2026061206
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:09 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> Cc: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "touchscreens"
>
> For the most part, tactilely discernable controls are
> mechanical including
> flat membrane panels with tactile markers. There are
> exceptions like a
> glass control panel where the controls are painted on and
> tactile markers are provided.
>
> On the iphone, there are a limited number of fixed controls
> (volume, 'silent', home button, etc.) but most of the
> controls are on the touchscreen. If full control were
> possible from the tactile controls then it would pass. Also,
> it has Bluetooth and may accept a Bluetooth keyboard or
> keypad. That would require reprogramming though.
>
>
> This all gets back to the definition of closed and how we
> want to use that term though.
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of David
>> Poehlman
>> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 8:34 PM
>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>> Cc: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "touchscreens"
>>
>> I don't think tactilly discernable means mechanical.
>>
>> On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:27 PM, Randy Marsden (Home) wrote:
>>
>> It's premature to conclude anything about the iPhone until
> we actually
>> see one and know more about the OS. But generally
> speaking, a touch
>> interface with back-lit LCD should be MORE accessible to
> people with
>> low vision, prosthetics, arthritis, or mobility impairments because
>> on-screen buttons at least have the potential of being made larger,
>> displayed with greater contrast, be scan-able, etc. (ie. More
>> accessible than other devices with small physical buttons). Touch
>> screens also usually require less force than mechanical buttons to
>> activate.
>>
>> The down-side of a touch interface is that a person who is
> blind can't
>> feel the controls before activating them (a requirement in
> the present
>> 508). So, a touchscreen interface is an example of something that
>> actually helps one group of people with disabilities while
> making it
>> difficult for another.
>> We're struggling with touch interfaces right now on the
> Hardware Sub-
>> con.
>> The present version of Section 508 appears to be heavily weighted
>> toward people who can't see, to the potential detriment of
> other types
>> of disabilities. Some sort of functional split in the requirements
>> seems needed.
>>
>> -Randy
>>>
>>> From: "Tom Brett" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:01:09 -0500
>>> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'" <teitac-
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed]
> "closed software"
>>>
>>
>>> In addition to the blind customers, people with low vision,
>>> prosthetics, arthritis and other mobility problems will
> not be able
>>> to operate this unit.
>>> While it is a marvel of technology it appears to be limited
>> to only
>>> a certain
>>> class of persons
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom Brett
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>> Lazzaro, Joe
>>> (ITD)
>>> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:35 PM
>>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed
> software"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From what I hear, mostly from the "Blind Confidential" blog, the
>>> iPhone may be inaccessible for blind users. I've also
> heard that the
>>> phone runs OS X, which could be beneficial if true. Maybe
> the phone
>>> will support VoiceOver? But the initial rumblings I'm hearing are
>>> that the ipPhone may be inaccessible, especially for blind
>>> consumers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Joe
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Joe Lazzaro
>>> Manager: Assistive Technology Group
>>> Information Technology Division
>>> Commonwealth of Massachusetts
>>> One Ashburton Place
>>> Room 1601
>>> Boston, MA 02108
>>> Voice: 617-626-4410
>>> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Web: www.Mass.gov/ITD
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
>> Behalf Of Gregg
>>> Vanderheiden
>>> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:32 PM
>>> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC self contained/
>>> closed products subcommittee'
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed
> software"
>>>
>>> I think this is a good example of how we need to think of 'closed'
>>> as a
>>> condition - not as a type of software or hardware.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyone know more about the iphone? They said it was based
>> on OS X
>>> but it
>>> could be just a small version of it (like windows and windows
>>> mobile).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>> -- ------------------------------
>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>>> Randy Marsden (Home)
>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:32 AM
>>>> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee; 'TEITAC
>>>> Web/Software Subcommittee'
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed]
> "closed software"
>>>>
>>>> Jim - I see this is a repost from the same email sent on
> Dec 22nd.
>>>> My apologies for not responding back then.
>>>>
>>>> We're starting to split hairs here, but technically I think the
>>>> iPod could be characterized as follows:
>>>> 1. The iPod hardware is an example of open hardware,
> since there is
>>>> a port that allows 3rd party software to be loaded on the device
>>>> (ie.
>>>> Rock Box).
>>>> 2. The iPod operating system as shipped from Appleis an
>> example of
>>>> closed
>>>> software, since it does not allow 3rd party application
> software or
>>>> assistive technology software to be loaded inaddition to the
>>>> existing software that it ships with.
>>>>
>>>> I think you're accurate in drawing the analogy between the iPod
>>>> hardware and PC hardware. Loading Rock Box on an iPod
> is analogous
>>>> to purchasing a PC with Windows loaded, but then
> reformatting the
>>>> hard drive and loading Linux instead. Same PC - different
>>>> operating systems. So, in terms of definition, I think
> you would
>>>> still have to characterize the iPod's software as closed
> (but its
>>>> hardware as open).
>>>>
>>>> So what defines a product? Its hardware, its software, or the
>>>> combination of both? When the federal government
> purchases iPods
>>>> for their employees to use for training purposes, I
> assume they are
>>>> thinking of the latter.
>>>> If a
>>>> Department bids out and receives 500 computer running
> Windows, they
>>>> don't expect some people to remove Windows and load
> Linux instead
>>>> (or visa versa).
>>>> With respect to the iPod, they probably have little instruction
>>>> manuals written that say things like:
>>>>
>>>> "To listen to module 1 of the training, navigate to the
> Music menu,
>>>> select Playlists, and choose 'Module 1'".
>>>>
>>>> I doubt there is an addendum to the manual that says:
>>>>
>>>> "If you have a disability, back up all the content of the iPod,
>>>> load the new operating system called Rock Box by
> connecting a USB
>>>> cable from your iPod to your computer that is running
> the Rock Box
>>>> installation software (which you'll need to obtain on-line),
>>>> restore the content (and try to keep it in the same order), and
>>>> then find Module 1. And by the way, since there is no
>>>> text-to-speech engine that comes with Rock Box, you will need to
>>>> find 'Module 1" by listening to each letter pronounced "m", "o",
>>>> "d", and so on.
>>>>
>>>> This just doesn't seem like an equitable solution for
> people with
>>>> disabilities. If the government hands them an iPod for
> training,
>>>> it should be accessible as-is, or with the addition of
> AT. Right
>>>> now it isn't, so I would call that "closed" (ie. Not
> accessible on
>>>> its own, and not possible to add AT that makes it accessible to
>>>> people with disabilities).
>>>>
>>>> -Randy
>>>>
>>>> PS: Maybe the repost is because of the recent
>> announcement of the
>>>> iPhone,
>>>> which is also an iPod, and running OS X, which (I think)
>> is open, and
>>>> completely changes my iPod argument! ;-) See how fast
> technology
>>>> changes...?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> Reply-To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:01:39 -0500
>>>> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC self contained/
>>>> closed products subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-websoftware]
> "closed software"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Randy wrote, regarding iPods that it's an example of "closed
>>>>> software", even given David Poehlman's identification of "Rock
>>>>> Box" as alternative interface. I don't see how this is so.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. iPods are designed to accept software upgrades from
> Apple, so
>>>>> they are not "closed" in that aspect, at least. Apple could
>>>>> somehow lock out all software changes that did not come
> thorough
>>>>> Apple
>> themselves, but
>>>>> they
>>>>> appear not to have done that. Even in that case, the
> "closedness"
>>>>> would be by policy, not by technological feasibility.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. "Rock Box" is an example of a third-party software
>> solution to
>>>>> some
>>>>> accessibility issues that can be loaded onto an iPod. Assuming
>>>>> that the original iPod interface can be restored
> somehow, doesn't
>>>>> that make the iPod almost like a PC, able to run with
> or without a
>>>>> screen reader, not like a product
>>>>>
>>>>> ***********
>>>>> Jim Tobias
>>>>> Inclusive Technologies
>>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
>>>>> skype jimtobias
>>>>> www.inclusive.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Randy Marsden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:46 PM
>>>>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee; TEITAC self contained/
>>>>> closed products subcommittee
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
>>>>>
>>>>> My iPod description given in emails yesterday is one
> such example.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Randy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:55:58 -0500
>>>>> To: "'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'"
>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC Web/Software
>>>>> Subcommittee'"
>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In the discussion of closed products, we seem to be
> converging on
>>>>>> the opinion that "closed" is a characteristic, not a
>> category. In this
>>>>>> context,
>>>>>> software has been mentioned as potentially closed.
> Can someone
>>>>>> please give me an example, or a further explanation, of what
>>>>>> closed
>> software
>>>>>> might be?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ***********
>>>>>> Jim Tobias
>>>>>> Inclusive Technologies
>>>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
>>>>>> skype jimtobias
>>>>>> www.inclusive.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

Previous message | Next message

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Jan 21 2007 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

That would count as a display. Now is there a Bluetooth format for
presenting info on remote text displays?

How does your BT Braille display get info from other devices?
What devices does it work with and what format is used to send it info?

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of David Poehlman
> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 9:17 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware]
> [teitac-hardware][teitac-closed]"touchscreens"
>
> I gott a bbluetooth braille display, does that count?
>
> On Jan 20, 2007, at 11:24 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>
> Well lets see
>
> To be accessible then you need all information and all
> control to be accessible to AT that a user has.
>
>
> 1) If a product can be completely controlled from a Bluetooth
> keyboard, then I think the first part is met since there are
> Bluetooth adapters for standard keyboards
>
> 2) I don't know of any 'Bluetooth text display" adapters or
> even a Bluetooth format for presenting the info on all the
> displays in text that could be fed
> to AT. But if there was then it could be fed to existing AT.
>
> So I think the answer is IF ALL FUNCTION could be done from
> the BT keyboard interface then PART of the access would be there.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Rex
> > Lint
> > Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 8:24 AM
> > To: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'; 'TEITAC
> > Web/Software Subcommittee'
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware]
> > [teitac-hardware][teitac-closed]"touchscreens"
> >
> > If a "blue tooth keyboard" and reprogramming could be
> considered to be
> > AT, why don't these "accommodations"
> > constitute 508 accessibility? Can a vendor, in this case, claim
> > "equivalent facilitation?" Don't we expect and permit AT
> > compatibility to be solutions for inaccessibility? If the keyboard
> > makes it too big, maybe the "fundamental alteration"
> > excuse applies until some AT that is [smaller/more accessible] is
> > invented. I think, since equivalent facilitation and fundamental
> > alteration are parts of 508, if the device were compatible with AT
> > that it WOULD meet the definition of 508 accessible.
> >
> > I think Bluetooth has the potential to be a major enabler for
> > accessibility, at least my mind runs wild just thinking about
> > possibilities. Then again, it often runs wild anyway.
> >
> > 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 Brett,
> > Thomas F
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:20 AM
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Cc: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] [teitac-websoftware]
> > [teitac-closed]"touchscreens"
> >
> > Gregg said:
> >
> > "it has Bluetooth and may accept a Bluetooth keyboard or keypad."
> >
> > Adding additional equipment to this device could result in
> creating an
> > Iphone that is accessible but that would not mean that the Iphone,
> > itself, meets the current 508 standards. If reprogramming
> is possible
> > to allow a keypad or keyboard to be attached to the device,
> that would
> > be a accommodation. In addition the customer would be required to
> > carry additional equipment so the device can be used.
> >
> >
> >
> > Tom Brett,
> > 2026061206
> > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Gregg
> > Vanderheiden
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:09 AM
> > To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
> > Cc: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "touchscreens"
> >
> > For the most part, tactilely discernable controls are mechanical
> > including
> > flat membrane panels with tactile markers. There are
> > exceptions like a
> > glass control panel where the controls are painted on and tactile
> > markers are provided.
> >
> > On the iphone, there are a limited number of fixed controls
> (volume,
> > 'silent', home button, etc.) but most of the controls are on the
> > touchscreen. If full control were possible from the
> tactile controls
> > then it would pass. Also, it has Bluetooth and may accept
> a Bluetooth
> > keyboard or keypad. That would require reprogramming though.
> >
> >
> > This all gets back to the definition of closed and how we
> want to use
> > that term though.
> >
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> > Behalf Of David
> >> Poehlman
> >> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 8:34 PM
> >> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> >> Cc: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "touchscreens"
> >>
> >> I don't think tactilly discernable means mechanical.
> >>
> >> On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:27 PM, Randy Marsden (Home) wrote:
> >>
> >> It's premature to conclude anything about the iPhone until
> > we actually
> >> see one and know more about the OS. But generally
> > speaking, a touch
> >> interface with back-lit LCD should be MORE accessible to
> > people with
> >> low vision, prosthetics, arthritis, or mobility
> impairments because
> >> on-screen buttons at least have the potential of being
> made larger,
> >> displayed with greater contrast, be scan-able, etc. (ie. More
> >> accessible than other devices with small physical buttons). Touch
> >> screens also usually require less force than mechanical buttons to
> >> activate.
> >>
> >> The down-side of a touch interface is that a person who is
> > blind can't
> >> feel the controls before activating them (a requirement in
> > the present
> >> 508). So, a touchscreen interface is an example of something that
> >> actually helps one group of people with disabilities while
> > making it
> >> difficult for another.
> >> We're struggling with touch interfaces right now on the
> > Hardware Sub-
> >> con.
> >> The present version of Section 508 appears to be heavily weighted
> >> toward people who can't see, to the potential detriment of
> > other types
> >> of disabilities. Some sort of functional split in the
> requirements
> >> seems needed.
> >>
> >> -Randy
> >>>
> >>> From: "Tom Brett" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:01:09 -0500
> >>> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'" <teitac-
> >>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed]
> > "closed software"
> >>>
> >>
> >>> In addition to the blind customers, people with low vision,
> >>> prosthetics, arthritis and other mobility problems will
> > not be able
> >>> to operate this unit.
> >>> While it is a marvel of technology it appears to be limited
> >> to only
> >>> a certain
> >>> class of persons
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Tom Brett
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> >>> Lazzaro, Joe
> >>> (ITD)
> >>> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:35 PM
> >>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed
> > software"
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From what I hear, mostly from the "Blind Confidential" blog, the
> >>> iPhone may be inaccessible for blind users. I've also
> > heard that the
> >>> phone runs OS X, which could be beneficial if true. Maybe
> > the phone
> >>> will support VoiceOver? But the initial rumblings I'm hearing are
> >>> that the ipPhone may be inaccessible, especially for blind
> >>> consumers.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Joe
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Joe Lazzaro
> >>> Manager: Assistive Technology Group
> >>> Information Technology Division
> >>> Commonwealth of Massachusetts
> >>> One Ashburton Place
> >>> Room 1601
> >>> Boston, MA 02108
> >>> Voice: 617-626-4410
> >>> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>> Web: www.Mass.gov/ITD
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> >> Behalf Of Gregg
> >>> Vanderheiden
> >>> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:32 PM
> >>> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC self contained/
> >>> closed products subcommittee'
> >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed
> > software"
> >>>
> >>> I think this is a good example of how we need to think of 'closed'
> >>> as a
> >>> condition - not as a type of software or hardware.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Anyone know more about the iphone? They said it was based
> >> on OS X
> >>> but it
> >>> could be just a small version of it (like windows and windows
> >>> mobile).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Gregg
> >>> -- ------------------------------
> >>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> >>>> Randy Marsden (Home)
> >>>> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:32 AM
> >>>> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee; 'TEITAC
> >>>> Web/Software Subcommittee'
> >>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed]
> > "closed software"
> >>>>
> >>>> Jim - I see this is a repost from the same email sent on
> > Dec 22nd.
> >>>> My apologies for not responding back then.
> >>>>
> >>>> We're starting to split hairs here, but technically I think the
> >>>> iPod could be characterized as follows:
> >>>> 1. The iPod hardware is an example of open hardware,
> > since there is
> >>>> a port that allows 3rd party software to be loaded on the device
> >>>> (ie.
> >>>> Rock Box).
> >>>> 2. The iPod operating system as shipped from Appleis an
> >> example of
> >>>> closed
> >>>> software, since it does not allow 3rd party application
> > software or
> >>>> assistive technology software to be loaded inaddition to the
> >>>> existing software that it ships with.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think you're accurate in drawing the analogy between the iPod
> >>>> hardware and PC hardware. Loading Rock Box on an iPod
> > is analogous
> >>>> to purchasing a PC with Windows loaded, but then
> > reformatting the
> >>>> hard drive and loading Linux instead. Same PC - different
> >>>> operating systems. So, in terms of definition, I think
> > you would
> >>>> still have to characterize the iPod's software as closed
> > (but its
> >>>> hardware as open).
> >>>>
> >>>> So what defines a product? Its hardware, its software, or the
> >>>> combination of both? When the federal government
> > purchases iPods
> >>>> for their employees to use for training purposes, I
> > assume they are
> >>>> thinking of the latter.
> >>>> If a
> >>>> Department bids out and receives 500 computer running
> > Windows, they
> >>>> don't expect some people to remove Windows and load
> > Linux instead
> >>>> (or visa versa).
> >>>> With respect to the iPod, they probably have little instruction
> >>>> manuals written that say things like:
> >>>>
> >>>> "To listen to module 1 of the training, navigate to the
> > Music menu,
> >>>> select Playlists, and choose 'Module 1'".
> >>>>
> >>>> I doubt there is an addendum to the manual that says:
> >>>>
> >>>> "If you have a disability, back up all the content of the iPod,
> >>>> load the new operating system called Rock Box by
> > connecting a USB
> >>>> cable from your iPod to your computer that is running
> > the Rock Box
> >>>> installation software (which you'll need to obtain on-line),
> >>>> restore the content (and try to keep it in the same order), and
> >>>> then find Module 1. And by the way, since there is no
> >>>> text-to-speech engine that comes with Rock Box, you will need to
> >>>> find 'Module 1" by listening to each letter pronounced "m", "o",
> >>>> "d", and so on.
> >>>>
> >>>> This just doesn't seem like an equitable solution for
> > people with
> >>>> disabilities. If the government hands them an iPod for
> > training,
> >>>> it should be accessible as-is, or with the addition of
> > AT. Right
> >>>> now it isn't, so I would call that "closed" (ie. Not
> > accessible on
> >>>> its own, and not possible to add AT that makes it accessible to
> >>>> people with disabilities).
> >>>>
> >>>> -Randy
> >>>>
> >>>> PS: Maybe the repost is because of the recent
> >> announcement of the
> >>>> iPhone,
> >>>> which is also an iPod, and running OS X, which (I think)
> >> is open, and
> >>>> completely changes my iPod argument! ;-) See how fast
> > technology
> >>>> changes...?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>>> Reply-To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
> >>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>>> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:01:39 -0500
> >>>> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
> >>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC self contained/
> >>>> closed products subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-websoftware]
> > "closed software"
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Randy wrote, regarding iPods that it's an example of "closed
> >>>>> software", even given David Poehlman's identification of "Rock
> >>>>> Box" as alternative interface. I don't see how this is so.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. iPods are designed to accept software upgrades from
> > Apple, so
> >>>>> they are not "closed" in that aspect, at least. Apple could
> >>>>> somehow lock out all software changes that did not come
> > thorough
> >>>>> Apple
> >> themselves, but
> >>>>> they
> >>>>> appear not to have done that. Even in that case, the
> > "closedness"
> >>>>> would be by policy, not by technological feasibility.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. "Rock Box" is an example of a third-party software
> >> solution to
> >>>>> some
> >>>>> accessibility issues that can be loaded onto an iPod. Assuming
> >>>>> that the original iPod interface can be restored
> > somehow, doesn't
> >>>>> that make the iPod almost like a PC, able to run with
> > or without a
> >>>>> screen reader, not like a product
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ***********
> >>>>> Jim Tobias
> >>>>> Inclusive Technologies
> >>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> >>>>> skype jimtobias
> >>>>> www.inclusive.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: Randy Marsden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:46 PM
> >>>>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee; TEITAC self contained/
> >>>>> closed products subcommittee
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> My iPod description given in emails yesterday is one
> > such example.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Randy
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>>>> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> >>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>>>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:55:58 -0500
> >>>>> To: "'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'"
> >>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC Web/Software
> >>>>> Subcommittee'"
> >>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>>>> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> In the discussion of closed products, we seem to be
> > converging on
> >>>>>> the opinion that "closed" is a characteristic, not a
> >> category. In this
> >>>>>> context,
> >>>>>> software has been mentioned as potentially closed.
> > Can someone
> >>>>>> please give me an example, or a further explanation, of what
> >>>>>> closed
> >> software
> >>>>>> might be?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> ***********
> >>>>>> Jim Tobias
> >>>>>> Inclusive Technologies
> >>>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> >>>>>> skype jimtobias
> >>>>>> www.inclusive.com
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>

Previous message | Next message

From: David Poehlman
Date: Sun, Jan 21 2007 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

The braille display works with jaws, talks and mobile speak. The two
latter packages will support it on any device that supports the most
recent versions of the software. For instance, my nokia 6620 from
cingular is not talks upgradable apparently so I cannot uuse my
Humanware Brailliant bluetooth display with it...

On Jan 21, 2007, at 3:28 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

That would count as a display. Now is there a Bluetooth format for
presenting info on remote text displays?

How does your BT Braille display get info from other devices?
What devices does it work with and what format is used to send it info?

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of David Poehlman
> Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2007 9:17 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware]
> [teitac-hardware][teitac-closed]"touchscreens"
>
> I gott a bbluetooth braille display, does that count?
>
> On Jan 20, 2007, at 11:24 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>
> Well lets see
>
> To be accessible then you need all information and all
> control to be accessible to AT that a user has.
>
>
> 1) If a product can be completely controlled from a Bluetooth
> keyboard, then I think the first part is met since there are
> Bluetooth adapters for standard keyboards
>
> 2) I don't know of any 'Bluetooth text display" adapters or
> even a Bluetooth format for presenting the info on all the
> displays in text that could be fed
> to AT. But if there was then it could be fed to existing AT.
>
> So I think the answer is IF ALL FUNCTION could be done from
> the BT keyboard interface then PART of the access would be there.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Rex
>> Lint
>> Sent: Friday, January 19, 2007 8:24 AM
>> To: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'; 'TEITAC
>> Web/Software Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware]
>> [teitac-hardware][teitac-closed]"touchscreens"
>>
>> If a "blue tooth keyboard" and reprogramming could be
> considered to be
>> AT, why don't these "accommodations"
>> constitute 508 accessibility? Can a vendor, in this case, claim
>> "equivalent facilitation?" Don't we expect and permit AT
>> compatibility to be solutions for inaccessibility? If the keyboard
>> makes it too big, maybe the "fundamental alteration"
>> excuse applies until some AT that is [smaller/more accessible] is
>> invented. I think, since equivalent facilitation and fundamental
>> alteration are parts of 508, if the device were compatible with AT
>> that it WOULD meet the definition of 508 accessible.
>>
>> I think Bluetooth has the potential to be a major enabler for
>> accessibility, at least my mind runs wild just thinking about
>> possibilities. Then again, it often runs wild anyway.
>>
>> 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 Brett,
>> Thomas F
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:20 AM
>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>> Cc: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] [teitac-websoftware]
>> [teitac-closed]"touchscreens"
>>
>> Gregg said:
>>
>> "it has Bluetooth and may accept a Bluetooth keyboard or keypad."
>>
>> Adding additional equipment to this device could result in
> creating an
>> Iphone that is accessible but that would not mean that the Iphone,
>> itself, meets the current 508 standards. If reprogramming
> is possible
>> to allow a keypad or keyboard to be attached to the device,
> that would
>> be a accommodation. In addition the customer would be required to
>> carry additional equipment so the device can be used.
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom Brett,
>> 2026061206
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of Gregg
>> Vanderheiden
>> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:09 AM
>> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'
>> Cc: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "touchscreens"
>>
>> For the most part, tactilely discernable controls are mechanical
>> including
>> flat membrane panels with tactile markers. There are
>> exceptions like a
>> glass control panel where the controls are painted on and tactile
>> markers are provided.
>>
>> On the iphone, there are a limited number of fixed controls
> (volume,
>> 'silent', home button, etc.) but most of the controls are on the
>> touchscreen. If full control were possible from the
> tactile controls
>> then it would pass. Also, it has Bluetooth and may accept
> a Bluetooth
>> keyboard or keypad. That would require reprogramming though.
>>
>>
>> This all gets back to the definition of closed and how we
> want to use
>> that term though.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
>> Behalf Of David
>>> Poehlman
>>> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 8:34 PM
>>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>>> Cc: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "touchscreens"
>>>
>>> I don't think tactilly discernable means mechanical.
>>>
>>> On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:27 PM, Randy Marsden (Home) wrote:
>>>
>>> It's premature to conclude anything about the iPhone until
>> we actually
>>> see one and know more about the OS. But generally
>> speaking, a touch
>>> interface with back-lit LCD should be MORE accessible to
>> people with
>>> low vision, prosthetics, arthritis, or mobility
> impairments because
>>> on-screen buttons at least have the potential of being
> made larger,
>>> displayed with greater contrast, be scan-able, etc. (ie. More
>>> accessible than other devices with small physical buttons). Touch
>>> screens also usually require less force than mechanical buttons to
>>> activate.
>>>
>>> The down-side of a touch interface is that a person who is
>> blind can't
>>> feel the controls before activating them (a requirement in
>> the present
>>> 508). So, a touchscreen interface is an example of something that
>>> actually helps one group of people with disabilities while
>> making it
>>> difficult for another.
>>> We're struggling with touch interfaces right now on the
>> Hardware Sub-
>>> con.
>>> The present version of Section 508 appears to be heavily weighted
>>> toward people who can't see, to the potential detriment of
>> other types
>>> of disabilities. Some sort of functional split in the
> requirements
>>> seems needed.
>>>
>>> -Randy
>>>>
>>>> From: "Tom Brett" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:01:09 -0500
>>>> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'" <teitac-
>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed]
>> "closed software"
>>>>
>>>
>>>> In addition to the blind customers, people with low vision,
>>>> prosthetics, arthritis and other mobility problems will
>> not be able
>>>> to operate this unit.
>>>> While it is a marvel of technology it appears to be limited
>>> to only
>>>> a certain
>>>> class of persons
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tom Brett
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>>> Lazzaro, Joe
>>>> (ITD)
>>>> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:35 PM
>>>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed
>> software"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From what I hear, mostly from the "Blind Confidential" blog, the
>>>> iPhone may be inaccessible for blind users. I've also
>> heard that the
>>>> phone runs OS X, which could be beneficial if true. Maybe
>> the phone
>>>> will support VoiceOver? But the initial rumblings I'm hearing are
>>>> that the ipPhone may be inaccessible, especially for blind
>>>> consumers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joe
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Joe Lazzaro
>>>> Manager: Assistive Technology Group
>>>> Information Technology Division
>>>> Commonwealth of Massachusetts
>>>> One Ashburton Place
>>>> Room 1601
>>>> Boston, MA 02108
>>>> Voice: 617-626-4410
>>>> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> Web: www.Mass.gov/ITD
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
>>> Behalf Of Gregg
>>>> Vanderheiden
>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:32 PM
>>>> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC self contained/
>>>> closed products subcommittee'
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed
>> software"
>>>>
>>>> I think this is a good example of how we need to think of 'closed'
>>>> as a
>>>> condition - not as a type of software or hardware.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anyone know more about the iphone? They said it was based
>>> on OS X
>>>> but it
>>>> could be just a small version of it (like windows and windows
>>>> mobile).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>>>> Randy Marsden (Home)
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:32 AM
>>>>> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee; 'TEITAC
>>>>> Web/Software Subcommittee'
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed]
>> "closed software"
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim - I see this is a repost from the same email sent on
>> Dec 22nd.
>>>>> My apologies for not responding back then.
>>>>>
>>>>> We're starting to split hairs here, but technically I think the
>>>>> iPod could be characterized as follows:
>>>>> 1. The iPod hardware is an example of open hardware,
>> since there is
>>>>> a port that allows 3rd party software to be loaded on the device
>>>>> (ie.
>>>>> Rock Box).
>>>>> 2. The iPod operating system as shipped from Appleis an
>>> example of
>>>>> closed
>>>>> software, since it does not allow 3rd party application
>> software or
>>>>> assistive technology software to be loaded inaddition to the
>>>>> existing software that it ships with.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you're accurate in drawing the analogy between the iPod
>>>>> hardware and PC hardware. Loading Rock Box on an iPod
>> is analogous
>>>>> to purchasing a PC with Windows loaded, but then
>> reformatting the
>>>>> hard drive and loading Linux instead. Same PC - different
>>>>> operating systems. So, in terms of definition, I think
>> you would
>>>>> still have to characterize the iPod's software as closed
>> (but its
>>>>> hardware as open).
>>>>>
>>>>> So what defines a product? Its hardware, its software, or the
>>>>> combination of both? When the federal government
>> purchases iPods
>>>>> for their employees to use for training purposes, I
>> assume they are
>>>>> thinking of the latter.
>>>>> If a
>>>>> Department bids out and receives 500 computer running
>> Windows, they
>>>>> don't expect some people to remove Windows and load
>> Linux instead
>>>>> (or visa versa).
>>>>> With respect to the iPod, they probably have little instruction
>>>>> manuals written that say things like:
>>>>>
>>>>> "To listen to module 1 of the training, navigate to the
>> Music menu,
>>>>> select Playlists, and choose 'Module 1'".
>>>>>
>>>>> I doubt there is an addendum to the manual that says:
>>>>>
>>>>> "If you have a disability, back up all the content of the iPod,
>>>>> load the new operating system called Rock Box by
>> connecting a USB
>>>>> cable from your iPod to your computer that is running
>> the Rock Box
>>>>> installation software (which you'll need to obtain on-line),
>>>>> restore the content (and try to keep it in the same order), and
>>>>> then find Module 1. And by the way, since there is no
>>>>> text-to-speech engine that comes with Rock Box, you will need to
>>>>> find 'Module 1" by listening to each letter pronounced "m", "o",
>>>>> "d", and so on.
>>>>>
>>>>> This just doesn't seem like an equitable solution for
>> people with
>>>>> disabilities. If the government hands them an iPod for
>> training,
>>>>> it should be accessible as-is, or with the addition of
>> AT. Right
>>>>> now it isn't, so I would call that "closed" (ie. Not
>> accessible on
>>>>> its own, and not possible to add AT that makes it accessible to
>>>>> people with disabilities).
>>>>>
>>>>> -Randy
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: Maybe the repost is because of the recent
>>> announcement of the
>>>>> iPhone,
>>>>> which is also an iPod, and running OS X, which (I think)
>>> is open, and
>>>>> completely changes my iPod argument! ;-) See how fast
>> technology
>>>>> changes...?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> Reply-To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:01:39 -0500
>>>>> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC self contained/
>>>>> closed products subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-websoftware]
>> "closed software"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Randy wrote, regarding iPods that it's an example of "closed
>>>>>> software", even given David Poehlman's identification of "Rock
>>>>>> Box" as alternative interface. I don't see how this is so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. iPods are designed to accept software upgrades from
>> Apple, so
>>>>>> they are not "closed" in that aspect, at least. Apple could
>>>>>> somehow lock out all software changes that did not come
>> thorough
>>>>>> Apple
>>> themselves, but
>>>>>> they
>>>>>> appear not to have done that. Even in that case, the
>> "closedness"
>>>>>> would be by policy, not by technological feasibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 2. "Rock Box" is an example of a third-party software
>>> solution to
>>>>>> some
>>>>>> accessibility issues that can be loaded onto an iPod. Assuming
>>>>>> that the original iPod interface can be restored
>> somehow, doesn't
>>>>>> that make the iPod almost like a PC, able to run with
>> or without a
>>>>>> screen reader, not like a product
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ***********
>>>>>> Jim Tobias
>>>>>> Inclusive Technologies
>>>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
>>>>>> skype jimtobias
>>>>>> www.inclusive.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Randy Marsden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>>>>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:46 PM
>>>>>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee; TEITAC self contained/
>>>>>> closed products subcommittee
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My iPod description given in emails yesterday is one
>> such example.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Randy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>>> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
>>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:55:58 -0500
>>>>>> To: "'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'"
>>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC Web/Software
>>>>>> Subcommittee'"
>>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>>> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the discussion of closed products, we seem to be
>> converging on
>>>>>>> the opinion that "closed" is a characteristic, not a
>>> category. In this
>>>>>>> context,
>>>>>>> software has been mentioned as potentially closed.
>> Can someone
>>>>>>> please give me an example, or a further explanation, of what
>>>>>>> closed
>>> software
>>>>>>> might be?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ***********
>>>>>>> Jim Tobias
>>>>>>> Inclusive Technologies
>>>>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
>>>>>>> skype jimtobias
>>>>>>> www.inclusive.com
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>

Previous message | Next message

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Jan 21 2007 11:15 PM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

That does work for their software because their software is designed to work
with presses only in those places. Most touch screen software changes the
position of buttons from screen to screen. Tactile button overlays won't
work for that.

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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-hardware-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David Poehlman
> Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 9:46 AM
> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> Cc: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-
> closed]"touchscreens"
>
> Hi Greg and all,
>
> On the del pdas used by humanware for trekker/maesro, there are only
> a few fixed controls and they are mechanical. Tthee touch screen is
> overlayed with a sleve containing a mechanicall keyboard which fits
> precicely over the display and thuus can be used to controll the
> device.. In this case though, the humanware software takes over the
> pda so that the overlay correspponds to ffunctiionality pertaining to
> the software used to drive the device.
>
> What I would propose is an overlay which would pprovide tactation but
> not necessarily be mechanical. I read in a recent faq though tht it
> is not possible to use the device with gloves though so I'm guessing
> your skin has to come into contact with it.
>
> On Jan 17, 2007, at 8:08 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>
> For the most part, tactilely discernable controls are mechanical
> including
> flat membrane panels with tactile markers. There are exceptions like a
> glass control panel where the controls are painted on and tactile
> markers
> are provided.
>
> On the iphone, there are a limited number of fixed controls (volume,
> 'silent', home button, etc.) but most of the controls are on the
> touchscreen. If full control were possible from the tactile controls
> then
> it would pass. Also, it has Bluetooth and may accept a Bluetooth
> keyboard
> or keypad. That would require reprogramming though.
>
>
> This all gets back to the definition of closed and how we want to use
> that
> term though.
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> > Of David Poehlman
> > Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 8:34 PM
> > To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> > Cc: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "touchscreens"
> >
> > I don't think tactilly discernable means mechanical.
> >
> > On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:27 PM, Randy Marsden (Home) wrote:
> >
> > It's premature to conclude anything about the iPhone until we
> > actually see one and know more about the OS. But generally
> > speaking, a touch interface with back-lit LCD should be MORE
> > accessible to people with low vision, prosthetics, arthritis,
> > or mobility impairments because on-screen buttons at least
> > have the potential of being made larger, displayed with
> > greater contrast, be scan-able, etc. (ie. More accessible
> > than other devices with small physical buttons). Touch
> > screens also usually require less force than mechanical
> > buttons to activate.
> >
> > The down-side of a touch interface is that a person who is
> > blind can't feel the controls before activating them (a
> > requirement in the present 508). So, a touchscreen interface
> > is an example of something that actually helps one group of
> > people with disabilities while making it difficult for another.
> > We're struggling with touch interfaces right now on the
> > Hardware Sub- con.
> > The present version of Section 508 appears to be heavily
> > weighted toward people who can't see, to the potential
> > detriment of other types of disabilities. Some sort of
> > functional split in the requirements seems needed.
> >
> > -Randy
> >>
> >> From: "Tom Brett" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 19:01:09 -0500
> >> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'" <teitac-
> >> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
> >>
> >
> >> In addition to the blind customers, people with low vision,
> >> prosthetics,
> >> arthritis and other mobility problems will not be able to operate
> >> this unit.
> >> While it is a marvel of technology it appears to be limited
> > to only
> >> a certain
> >> class of persons
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Tom Brett
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> >> Lazzaro, Joe
> >> (ITD)
> >> Sent: Sunday, January 14, 2007 4:35 PM
> >> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From what I hear, mostly from the "Blind Confidential" blog, the
> >> iPhone may be
> >> inaccessible for blind users. I've also heard that the phone runs
> >> OS X, which
> >> could be beneficial if true. Maybe the phone will support
> >> VoiceOver? But the
> >> initial rumblings I'm hearing are that the ipPhone may be
> >> inaccessible,
> >> especially for blind consumers.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Joe
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Joe Lazzaro
> >> Manager: Assistive Technology Group
> >> Information Technology Division
> >> Commonwealth of Massachusetts
> >> One Ashburton Place
> >> Room 1601
> >> Boston, MA 02108
> >> Voice: 617-626-4410
> >> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> Web: www.Mass.gov/ITD
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> > Behalf Of Gregg
> >> Vanderheiden
> >> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 5:32 PM
> >> To: 'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC self contained/
> >> closed products
> >> subcommittee'
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
> >>
> >> I think this is a good example of how we need to think of 'closed'
> >> as a
> >> condition - not as a type of software or hardware.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Anyone know more about the iphone? They said it was based
> > on OS X
> >> but it
> >> could be just a small version of it (like windows and windows
> >> mobile).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Gregg
> >> -- ------------------------------
> >> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> >>> Randy
> >>> Marsden (Home)
> >>> Sent: Saturday, January 13, 2007 10:32 AM
> >>> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee; 'TEITAC
> >>> Web/Software
> >>> Subcommittee'
> >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] [teitac-closed] "closed software"
> >>>
> >>> Jim - I see this is a repost from the same email sent on Dec
> >>> 22nd. My
> >>> apologies for not responding back then.
> >>>
> >>> We're starting to split hairs here, but technically I think the
> >>> iPod could be
> >>> characterized as follows:
> >>> 1. The iPod hardware is an example of open hardware, since there
> >>> is a port
> >>> that allows 3rd party software to be loaded on the device (ie.
> >>> Rock Box).
> >>> 2. The iPod operating system as shipped from Appleis an
> > example of
> >>> closed
> >>> software, since it does not allow 3rd party application software
> >>> or assistive
> >>> technology software to be loaded inaddition to the existing
> >>> software that it
> >>> ships with.
> >>>
> >>> I think you're accurate in drawing the analogy between the iPod
> >>> hardware and
> >>> PC hardware. Loading Rock Box on an iPod is analogous to
> >>> purchasing a PC
> >>> with Windows loaded, but then reformatting the hard drive and
> >>> loading Linux
> >>> instead. Same PC - different operating systems. So, in terms of
> >>> definition,
> >>> I think you would still have to characterize the iPod's software
> >>> as closed
> >>> (but its hardware as open).
> >>>
> >>> So what defines a product? Its hardware, its software, or the
> >>> combination of
> >>> both? When the federal government purchases iPods for their
> >>> employees to use
> >>> for training purposes, I assume they are thinking of the latter.
> >>> If a
> >>> Department bids out and receives 500 computer running Windows,
> >>> they don't
> >>> expect some people to remove Windows and load Linux instead (or
> >>> visa versa).
> >>> With respect to the iPod, they probably have little instruction
> >>> manuals
> >>> written that say things like:
> >>>
> >>> "To listen to module 1 of the training, navigate to the Music
> >>> menu, select
> >>> Playlists, and choose 'Module 1'".
> >>>
> >>> I doubt there is an addendum to the manual that says:
> >>>
> >>> "If you have a disability, back up all the content of the iPod,
> >>> load the new
> >>> operating system called Rock Box by connecting a USB cable from
> >>> your iPod to
> >>> your computer that is running the Rock Box installation software
> >>> (which
> >>> you'll need to obtain on-line), restore the content (and try to
> >>> keep it in
> >>> the same order), and then find Module 1. And by the way, since
> >>> there is no
> >>> text-to-speech engine that comes with Rock Box, you will need to
> >>> find 'Module
> >>> 1" by listening to each letter pronounced "m", "o", "d", and so on.
> >>>
> >>> This just doesn't seem like an equitable solution for people with
> >>> disabilities. If the government hands them an iPod for training,
> >>> it should
> >>> be accessible as-is, or with the addition of AT. Right now it
> >>> isn't, so I
> >>> would call that "closed" (ie. Not accessible on its own, and not
> >>> possible to
> >>> add AT that makes it accessible to people with disabilities).
> >>>
> >>> -Randy
> >>>
> >>> PS: Maybe the repost is because of the recent
> > announcement of the
> >>> iPhone,
> >>> which is also an iPod, and running OS X, which (I think)
> > is open, and
> >>> completely changes my iPod argument! ;-) See how fast technology
> >>> changes...?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> Reply-To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
> >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 10:01:39 -0500
> >>> To: "'TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee'"
> >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC self contained/
> >>> closed products
> >>> subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Randy wrote, regarding iPods that it's an example of "closed
> >>>> software", even
> >>>> given David Poehlman's identification of "Rock Box" as alternative
> >>>> interface. I don't see how this is so.
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. iPods are designed to accept software upgrades from Apple, so
> >>>> they are
> >>>> not "closed" in that aspect, at least. Apple could somehow lock
> >>>> out all
> >>>> software changes that did not come thorough Apple
> > themselves, but
> >>>> they
> >>>> appear not to have done that. Even in that case, the
> >>>> "closedness" would be
> >>>> by policy, not by technological feasibility.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. "Rock Box" is an example of a third-party software
> > solution to
> >>>> some
> >>>> accessibility issues that can be loaded onto an iPod. Assuming
> >>>> that the
> >>>> original iPod interface can be restored somehow, doesn't that
> >>>> make the iPod
> >>>> almost like a PC, able to run with or without a screen reader,
> >>>> not like a
> >>>> product
> >>>>
> >>>> ***********
> >>>> Jim Tobias
> >>>> Inclusive Technologies
> >>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> >>>> skype jimtobias
> >>>> www.inclusive.com
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Randy Marsden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> >>>> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 6:46 PM
> >>>> To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee; TEITAC self contained/
> >>>> closed products
> >>>> subcommittee
> >>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
> >>>>
> >>>> My iPod description given in emails yesterday is one such example.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Randy
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>>> Reply-To: TEITAC Web/Software Subcommittee
> >>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>>> Date: Tue, 19 Dec 2006 07:55:58 -0500
> >>>> To: "'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'"
> >>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC Web/Software
> >>>> Subcommittee'"
> >>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>>> Subject: [teitac-websoftware] "closed software"
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In the discussion of closed products, we seem to be converging
> >>>>> on the
> >>>>> opinion that "closed" is a characteristic, not a
> > category. In this
> >>>>> context,
> >>>>> software has been mentioned as potentially closed. Can someone
> >>>>> please give
> >>>>> me an example, or a further explanation, of what closed
> > software
> >>>>> might be?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ***********
> >>>>> Jim Tobias
> >>>>> Inclusive Technologies
> >>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> >>>>> skype jimtobias
> >>>>> www.inclusive.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>

Previous message |

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Jan 21 2007 11:20 PM
Subject: Re: "touchscreens"

WebAIM is an initiative of: