HW Minutes Mar 30
Hardware SC 03/30/07 Con Call
Agenda
- Welcome
- Topics
- Discussed proposal on list serve to reduce force requirement from 5 to 1 pound
- Open discussion
- Confirm next meeting
Reduction of force discussion:
Committee discussed proposal to reduce force from 5 to 1 lb. Key points included:
- 5 lbs may seem high, but the standard is written such that it must cover all potential controls not just keyboards
- The 5 lb number comes from the ADAAG max weight for built environment
- Challenge is in the defining a limit that will meet all potential controls.
- For keyboards, a keyboard standard ISO 9241-4 exists that specifies accepted keyboard force and travel characteristics
- For non-keyboard controls, the force requirements need to be balanced against the intended use of the control, what is a control, avoiding accidental activation, etc..
- The question of "What is the benefit of changing this particular requirement?"
- Feedback from government participants in the meeting is that this is not something that they have heard of problems with
General consensus from the participants was that this requirement should not be changed.
Jim Elekes updated the subcommittee on potential components for the May agenda from the Access board perspective.
Discussion was initiated on the topic of Flicker Frequency:
Currently 3/sec to 55/sec is the prohibitied zone. A member brought up research that suggested that the contrast with background and total area of the flickering item can also impact the situation. Potential impact to our work is relative to flicker in LEDs and other small sources (as compared to a full screen).
This topic is still open for discussion.
Participants were asked to review the 1194.25 j(1-4) for discussion at 4/6 call
March 30 HW Call Transcript Follows:
Event ID: 676986
Event Started: 3/30/2007 10:50:09 AM ET
Please stand by for realtime relay captions.
Hi, whose joined.
Jim [Speaker/Audio unclear] from the access board.
Good morning Jim. We have the captioner present.
Rob, is there a way can I mute my line, because I'm going to have background noise because I don't want to disturb the call call. .
Good morning, this is rob the co chair. It's 10:00 o'clock by my watch here in Austin. So let's go ahead and get started by getting a gauge of who else is on the call at this point in time so far, myself, the captioner and Jim [Speaker/Audio unclear] Has anyone else joined?
Rob, if it's any note, it may have been delayed because I had to-- the first time I dilled network I got a busy signal. The second time, it asked me for the passcode. The first time it didn't recognize and the second time it done go through.
Thanks Jim. We'll -- we'll give folk a few more minutes to join in, definitely I just know it's spring break season based on the e-mails I've gotten from other parties on the hardware committee.
I've already had mine, so all I can be is jealous .
We're on next week and the following week, I'm on access board in Atlantic city?
Yeah, the Midlandic regional [Speaker/Audio unclear] is the transportation vehicles and we'll be post to the web probably within the next five to seven days. [Speaker/Audio unclear] which has not been updated sin they were first released in '91. Fortunately, the [Speaker/Audio unclear] MTA New York, probably No. 2 56, of the largest transportation projects of cup tree, plus a lot of other smaller companies come to the conference, we're doing a public information presentation to [Speaker/Audio unclear] re[Speaker/Audio unclear] industry comment as far as we're-- if we're on the right direction, what things that were exempt or were not included in the 1991, do we need to consider because of the changes in modality-- a lot of transit vehicles. So -- they're expecting about 1500 people for the conference.
Wow.
So we've got a session on Thursday morning, the 12th from 10 to 1:00 p.m. and I'm on two round tables the previous day regarding intelligent transit systems. Dispatching, routing, GPS and such. And then I'm on one regarding an issue that's created with a lot of people are using these Walkers that have wheels on them and a flip down seat. I'm going to be there with a colleague who is from transportation research board and talking about their research as to why you shouldn't allow a person to ride on a tubular aluminum seat because I mean, people think you can secure them. Sure, you put a [Speaker/Audio unclear] and put a seat belt around the person and the first time you get a breaking incident at 30 miles an hour or less, I've seen those S hooks literally snap the frame of the aluminum. It's only 29 or 28 gauge.
Yeah, the engineer and me, when you said seats, Walkers and objects in motion, it was like, ooh, that's ugly. Or potentially ullingly.
They're selling these things and they're telling people that they are capable of using them on a public transit vehicle. That may be true for standing upright and such, but if they want to ride the liftos them and the properties I don't want to-- that don't want to necessarily go to low floors and the ramp who have the high flors and [Speaker/Audio unclear] with the Walker as the lift is going up and vibrating. I don't care how smooth the lift is.
Yeah you would think at some point, there would have to be some truth in advertising from the manufacturers.
I've been involved in that issue since 85-- since '85. We have asked everyone to specify that a mobility device has to be while it may be a mobility devise, it may not necessarily be transportable or transcapable. But they don't want to ipdicate that because it limits the variety of the material they can sell and the mark up on these things is incredible.
Anything.
--
Interesting.
This is Gina from I'm sorry.
Hygiena, Good morning.
Is it just the three of us.
This is Terry weaver, I'm just joined.
This is Tom Albin, I'm here as well.
Anybody else joined?
Well, we've got a few more folks than last week, so let's try at least to use some of this time to-- of value. So good morning to all, this is rob nor wood, one of the coast clars.
Randy is I believe out on spring break, which is what I think we've been competeing with in the last few weeks, that opportunity to enjoy. If you're if you're those of us in the warmer climates heading for the colder climbs and vice verse A I did not have an opportunity to pull together a full agenda because I missed the call during my spring break it was my understanding that what folks had done was continue to work through the conat the present time on the draft-- content on the draft report relative to discussing different elements of it. And I unfortunately had auditors O site most of the week and was running erneds to make sure they were happed-- they were happy so we could do things relative to my job. With that I would ask if anyone was on the call on the 15th, two weeks ago?
This is Terry, I had to confess, I've been [Speaker/Audio unclear] getting to meetingos Friday.
No problem. We knew that was a risk with Friday meetings. We don't want to cut too hard into people's three-day weekends. There there was some interesting discussion. Wages I'd like to spring up is Jim Tobias did put out a proposed change [Speaker/Audio unclear] around the topic via our other discussions on the call, at least by quite consensus seem to be pretty well settled.
[Speaker/Audio unclear] should you bring up Jim's e-mail N this is terdisble yeah I'm trying to bring up my note and take notes basically, he sent out an e-mail earlier this week around the 11 nor.-- 1194.23, K2 component, specifically force requires to activate course and keys should be 5 pounds maximum. I believe he has proposed a shift to a 1 pound limit relative tow that particular-- relative to that particular requirement. So I did not see any follow up on e-mail to this particular so I wanted to bring it up for some discussion here.
Rob, this is Tom.
Yes.
I'm sorry, maybe I should be looking at-- if I'm jumping the queue on someone, please holler at me .
Okay. Thank you. This 5-pound provision or the 1 pound provision for that matter, have-- have always made my somewhat uncomfortable because I come to it from-- from talking with keyboard designers who are looking at, you understanding four or 5 ounces being the maximum force that they would use on a keas-- keys. It seems a little disconcerting seeing that lim in there. Now, I understand that makes some sense for things like closing a laptop and you know, I would think it-- find it really annoying if my laptop kept driffing closed because it-- you know, it didn't have sufficient resistance to stand up right. So, in one-- and 1 pound doesn't really do that much for me for a key force either. So I guess what I'm saying is I don't really see much reason to change that from five to one. I would just assume leave it as five.
Tom, this is Jim from the access board. The 5-pound, having worked on the ADA accessibility guidelines of the standard we maintained from the first go around for maximum weight that need to be exerted pound pull, to open a door or to do any physical, mechanical movement in the built environment.
Exactly.
So I mean with the technology I've-- when I saw his -- eye put out an inquiry to a number with a number of programs who deal with training of individuals who are blind that may have multiple disabilities. As far as keys, they said 1 pound and it was coming back question. They said with the multitude when disabilities or lack of find motor skills, they were saying you-- they were saying perhaps a maximum of six to 8 ounces of force would be more than adequate. But when I asked, do you have some technical data to provide me to reinforce that argument, the comments came back it's -- we've measured it but we've never really documented and so on. I went through the computer system for the visually impaired over at Baruka, New York, the traina center here in South Carolina that is doing telephone customer service training of blind and multiple disabled for the IRS-- it's probably the IRS, as well as Avis and a couple of major reservation type operations and they all said the same thing to me. They said if you have a pown or more, a lot of individuals would find it extremely difficult to operate the keyboard.
I think-- I'm sorry this, is rob with Dell. Make sure when you speak, you introduce yourself. I think the key word there you've got there is keyboard. And there are known standards around keyboards. There's the ISO92 front dash [Speaker/Audio unclear] that is used as the baseline in many countries for accept able in keyboards in the workplace issue that defines key keying forces. I think 1 pound down at that level is probably achievable. It's from my point-- from my perspective, the concern that is what is globally occurred to be a control, are we just talking about keyboard type inputs on a device accident or are we also getting into the release latch on the well. CD or for your battery the release to pull a hard drive mechanism out of a server. So controls, at least the way I've seen it and the way our controls have asked, have been more than just buttons and so I think we need to be very careful, if we shift this, how it's potentially applied outside of just that keyboard interface which seems to be Jim's focus in his e-mail. So that's the end of my thought. Tom, you have your hand up?
Yeah, I think that's right. I think part of the difficulty with this or the discomfort I know I felt is that it is confusing. If we're only talking about keyboards, then absolutely, 1 pound is-- is you know, is certainly doable because everybody's been talking about four or 5 ounces for the last-- I don't know, I suppose 20 years at least. But if we're talking about control in general, then maybe 1 pound isn't enough. You know, or-- you know, because I certainly don't want to have my-- my laptop drifting closed every time there's a little joaftel on the plain because it only takes 4 ounces of force to close it and then inertia of the screen itself is enough to close it. I would find that frustrating. I'm kind of rambling I guess. But I think that again, we need to maybe and we need to be more [Speaker/Audio unclear] as to what we're talking about. Is a five-found force for some things? Yes is it appropriate for keyboards, it's probably more than we need, but at least, I wouldn't expect to see a keyboard that had anything over -- you know, four or 5-ounce force requirement for a key.
Yeah, I think the market would bear that out in both the mainstream and the disability community. It would just -- eye know, personally, we see that when some of our keyboard vendors come back out of spec and customers and use ables pick up immediately on it with the keyboard. Terry, may I put you on the spot?
Yes, you can.
In your dealings with 508 what have you seen in the government relative to this particular requirement with the 5-pounds.
this is not something I have heard, myself, any questions on. I think it's something from the buying side, as we're looking for something to-- somebody to say asserting they've done then and then we're happy with it. But I haven't heard much in the confers like that-- conversation like that. The only area I ark cert some of that is people talking like B freral devices-- I don't think they're talking about the 5-pound per se, but they're talking about-- he's the only one who has the right -- he talked about the requirement for how much pressure and [Speaker/Audio unclear] truly meets it. I didn't have to test it to know that or not. So again, I haven't heard this as being a big issue. It tends to be since we don't have hardware experts in testing per se it's more of a case-- does it work and do the-- does the company we're purchasing from say it's address this and then we believe it?
Uh-huh .
Okay. I might-- I guess we don't have David Backley on the phone. He get a lot of technical questions and I haven't heard him talk about so much again.
I'm sorry, this is rob again and typically this, is not one of the things that our buyers are coming back and asking us on on, simply because I like po believe that I recognize that with the global word of controls, you've got to allow the flexibility to consider specifically what type of interaction is it, is it the interaction of opening your LCD as compared to the interaction of actually powering on your system. And you may -- you're definitely -- eye know from an engineering perspective, we're going to have two different forces there. From a vendor perspective, it've the way it's written it allow us us to find the best balance, given what the particular control needs to do relative to the overall product goal, whether it's a portable or server or keyboard.
This is Terry what the benefit to us for changing it? For those who-- those who are wanting to change what is the benefit of the change?
This is Tom. I-- I think-- I'm not arguing in favor of it, but I'm trying to understand what I think the argument for it would be. Eyeglasses think that it's to pre-- I-- I think its it's to prevent the outside chance that someone would come along and say I could 5 pounds.
But that would be be hardly very usable for anybody, right.
Right.
You know, personally.
I understand the -- you know,-- I'm sorry this, is Tom again. I understand-- I don't know what up to call it, the uneasiness with it because it just looks wrong if you're familiar with keyboard and key force designs. But and I've express that concern to several people in the past. But repped, I -- eye I guess I don't really see any advantage to changing.
Hole on. I'm not managing-- holdock I'm not managing the queue. Nobody's in the queue. Okay this is rob again. I than in this process, perhaps it's a good opportunity to not change the way the standard is written, but to perhaps provide more inside relative to keyboard design in the guidelines in that in looking for-- if Jim's concern really is around keyboards in playing with the spirit of harmonization, as I said earlier, there's an isostandard that specifically stands what the should and shall requirements should be for computer keyboards relative to force and travel and displacement and I know that many keyboard manufacturers and many [Speaker/Audio unclear] venldors use those as the minimal acceptable level for designing [Speaker/Audio unclear] maybe this is one of those tunes where our recommendation where we at least make sure any guidance documentation refer folks to that information that make sense?
It sense. This is Jim from the Access board.
This it Terry, I disagree this is Tom, I would agree with that All right. Gean ark we're going for consensus.
All right works for me.
I'll bow to you.
Don't do that my ego can't handle it. Very good. Any other commentos this?
Well, what I'll do is I'll summarize this in the notes and poaf it out on WICI for today's minutes. We'll move on, at this point in time, I will open the floor for any other topics that folks would like to address on this week's call or any other issues.
This is Jim from the access board. This is more of of an information item. We had a-- we're starting to build your ark gennedda for the May board meeting, and I met with David K AP ozi yesterday and staff and an e-mail is going to be sent probably today if it hasn't gone already to Jim and Mike and there are four components from the board committee which we came up with yesterday as far as their presentation in May. One is the issues that have been addressed thus far and have been put to bed. Two, those that are remaining and-- and will likely be addressed before the final recommendation. The third is those areas that are likely to be handed off to the bore's committee and-- the board's committee and 508 staff because of time considerations and such. But there was one that I thought I would put it on the table because a-- I've already a-- heard a lot of discussion. But a summary discussion perhaps of recommendations to the board for additional five interior eight, two-- 508,255 research. The board has a relatively small research budget. It's about 450 to 475,000 each year. We use that generally as seed money to develop interest in studies and supplement studies so that there's an opportunity that-- for the TEITAC if there is an area that is minus research or minus sufficient documentation to bring those forth via the two cochair when is they talk to us in May arks to what-- as to what the board should be entering into as far as research so we can incorporate in the FY28 overall research plan and subsequently a number of outyears. But in some of the other committees, it's been the access board should do research -- and I have a list of about 26 suggestions like that. And rather than me bringing them forth, I thought perhaps its would be best coming from perhaps the subcommittee chairs to the cochairs or some consensus document so that I'm not just putting out-- well, this would have-- kind of, should of, would of been nice Burk more concrete ideas for defined research .
Okay. This is Tom, I can make a change in detection.
Yes, you may.
Okay. I -- I'd like to-- to ask for some discussion of another hardware issue and that's the flicker frequency definition. In the original 508, I believe that was said that three per second to 55 per second was the prohibited zone and I have seen recently that there have been proposals that anything above three heartz or three cycles per second, is now prohibited. And I -- I'm trying to understand why we now feel that we can make that distinction and secondly, I'm wondering if that doesn't create a whole lot of difficulties for us that we don't really upon to get into?
This is Rob. Unfortunately, not an area of expertise for me. Can anyone else comment on this?
This is Tom again. And I certainly won't claim any great depth of expertise for this area, but I have looked at some of the research and -- and it's-- you know, certainly the range that 508 came up with before seems to be fairly consistently supported within the literature that I've seen. You know, they mate say, 10 to 32 as opposed to three to 55. But they-- the research does tend to talk about you know, a range of frequencies being problematic for photo sense susepilepsy. The literature also talks about contrast and area and I-- know that there's been some discussion of including area in nadefinition, but I haven't seen anything come about contrast. So I'm just I'm just very perplexed as to why we think we should change that. And I don't understand-- and again, I don't want to claim a great depth of experience, but the limited research that I've done on this, I don't see-- or haven't found support for taking that position, I guess.
[Speaker/Audio unclear]
Hello?
There was a background conversation so I'm guessing there is no other comment on this from anyone? Has -- Tom, has there been an actual proposal on one of the [Speaker/Audio unclear] to change this? I'm trying to track down information.
ig I'm not sure. I thought there might have been some discussion in the general, whether that was meant to be software or hardware related or some combination of both.
Yeah, this is language in the software specific to that and the question that has been posted on the WIKI relative to our group in hardware is does this apply to LEDs or other light-based messaging in the corporal interaction. So into some degree that would go back well to-- the two questions you brought up of area and contrast, does a small form well. ED on your-- LED on the front of your desktop that's designed to link amber in a false state, is that a large -- I guess the question is that large enough area to initiate a photo sensitive individual?
This is time again -- this is Tom again. And I think that would probably fail the area requirement, so I think that that is something that we-- we would probably want to think about including in a definition. I suspect that it would also fail or could fail the contrast requirement and you know, how-- how much contrast does it have to have to be -- to be noticeable. So-- I -- you know, I do think we need to be careful about that definition, I guess is the message I would raise for right now.
Uh-huh. .
Okay. Very good. Thanks. Any other comments? As usual, quite group. Okay. I guess we're about halfway through our time and what I would like to do is just stick y'all on-- there we go, definitely fall intog my southern act cent. Way would like to do is get you-all thank youking about an element that-- you thinking about an element of what we're propose-- what we're taking a look at in hardware can that's how the product fit into's its environment. Specifically, this is the 1194.25, J one through four language as written in the current 508 standards. What I would ask is that you each, take some type tie -- time, look at those this week and either via [Speaker/Audio unclear] or through next Friday's conference call, we'll discuss these in a little greater detail. I know that I've got some-- I know how typically industry responds to this one and I want to make sure this we've at least discussed it and come to consensus of the Committee in terms of how we're going to make our recommendations back to the full advisory board. So I will open up the floor for any other points of discussion. And then give y'all back half an hour of your day to go look at what I just asked you to look at.
Rob, this is Tom again. And if you're going to start speaking southern, don't you have to worry about how much force people mash down on the key with?
Unfortunately, Tom is correct. There tens to be a fair amount of keyboard abuse at least in the southern states I live in. Something about the harder you hit it, the bright teris on the screen. Oh, wait, this is a public record. Okay. Well, --
This is Terry. In the assignment, but I'll tell you right now, this is is not an area of my expertise at all if there's some place in government, I can go for that, I've got to ponder upon it. This is one of my eye glazing provisions for me.
Yeah.
I'm sorry, this is rob again. It's one of those from the vendor's perspective, we try take it into consideration especially on larger products like printers or copiers.
It's pretty for me for stan alone presenters or copier, it's pretty evident you want a design for it. But it's for the one thars bridging a gap between the true small form factor desktop and the large stand alone that kind of get challenging, because to some degree it's much of a function as to what desk that I put it on as anything else. And so, don't glaze too bad if you think of anybody, wonderful. If not.
Good.
Then we'll know what's going-- we'll get feedback from other folks.
Rob, could you just repeat that.
It's 11 for DOT 25.
J one through four .
Okay.
And basically it's the one that starts with the statement projects which are 43 standing and nonportable [Speaker/Audio unclear] must be [Speaker/Audio unclear] depend on where controls are located correct.
So maybe one the things that might come back out of this might be additional guidance too or something that's going to talk to location.
Yeah. Correct.
Or blame.
Yeah we may say the standard is fine, but we want to the guidance documentation to suggest that products-- development products consider the furniture guidelines for credit densa heights,eck. So,--eck. Well-- et cetera. Well, unless there is anything else accident I want to thank everyone for the time this week. I will summarize the notes and get them posted on the WIKI and with that I wish you-all a pleasant weekend.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Bye all.
Bye all.
[End of Relay Event]
