Thread Subject: Comments on CLOSED REPORT

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Mar 18 2007 10:10 AM
Subject: Comments on CLOSED REPORT

Hi



I was compiling all the reports from the different committees and I have the
following observations on the ?closed product? items.







1194.25 (a)

The report says ?Proposed that self-contained is a functional characteristic
of either hardware or software rather than a class of products. Identify
that a closed product function could be by design, policy or perhaps other
reasoning. Not requiring AT will be changed to reflect that AT is not
readily available or that a choice has been made not to be compatible with
available AT.?



COMMENT: This is good. But the old provisions should still apply. That
is, if AT is not available/usable - then the product needs to be usable
without AT (which is what the current provision says. No?)









1194.25 (c)

The report says: (c) Where a product utilizes touchscreens or
contact-sensitive controls, an input method shall be provided that complies
with §1194.23 (k) (1) through (4).

Change in jurisdiction Hardware

Modification Under discussion

Rationale ? Why is this change suggested? The text of this provision
refers to touch sensitive controls but the compliance points taken from
telecomm refer to mechanical controls.



COMMENT: This doesn?t need changing. What it is saying is that if you
have touchscreen or touch interfaces the same functionality must ALSO be
available via controls that match §1194.23 (k) (1) through (4)









1194.25 (d) Biometric and (j) Color

COMMENT: Should transfer to GENERAL












Gregg

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

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848

DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b

<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>

From: Whitney Quesenbery
Date: Sun, Mar 18 2007 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: Comments on CLOSED REPORT

At 12:04 PM 3/18/2007, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>
>1194.25 (a)
>The report says "Proposed that self-contained is a functional
>characteristic of either hardware or software rather than a class of
>products. Identify that a closed product function could be by design,
>policy or perhaps other reasoning. Not requiring AT will be changed to
>reflect that AT is not readily available or that a choice has been made
>not to be compatible with available AT."
>
>COMMENT: This is good. But the old provisions should still apply. That
>is, if AT is not available/usable - then the product needs to be usable
>without AT (which is what the current provision says. No?)


But isn't that the point of the new structure? That a product must meet
either the provisions to be accessible in at least one mode OR support AT?



Whitney Quesenbery
Whitney Interactive Design
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
phone: 908-638-5467
mobile: 908-328-5959
www.WQusability.com
www.usabilityprofessionals.org

"Warning: Objects in the calendar are closer than they appear."

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Mar 18 2007 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: Comments on CLOSED REPORT

Yes that would be true for most products.
But not if a product is 'closed'

If it is closed, by definition it can't be accessed by AT. So then the
provision kicks in. In fact all the closed provisions kick in.

On could argue that the Functional performance items make the whole closed
characteristic and rules unnecessary. But then you could say that they
would make all of the provisions unnecessary.

The problem is that people can't extrapolate well and need the detailed
guidance. We even see people doing ONLY the technical and ignoring the
Performance Criteria.

Make sense?


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Whitney Quesenbery
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 2:19 PM
> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Comments on CLOSED REPORT
>
> At 12:04 PM 3/18/2007, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> >
> >1194.25 (a)
> >The report says "Proposed that self-contained is a functional
> >characteristic of either hardware or software rather than a class of
> >products. Identify that a closed product function could be
> by design,
> >policy or perhaps other reasoning. Not requiring AT will be
> changed to
> >reflect that AT is not readily available or that a choice
> has been made
> >not to be compatible with available AT."
> >
> >COMMENT: This is good. But the old provisions should still apply.
> >That is, if AT is not available/usable - then the product
> needs to be
> >usable without AT (which is what the current provision says. No?)
>
>
> But isn't that the point of the new structure? That a product
> must meet either the provisions to be accessible in at least
> one mode OR support AT?
>
>
>
> Whitney Quesenbery
> Whitney Interactive Design
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> phone: 908-638-5467
> mobile: 908-328-5959
> www.WQusability.com
> www.usabilityprofessionals.org
>
> "Warning: Objects in the calendar are closer than they appear."
>
>