HW Minutes Nov 3

Hardware 11/03 Minutes

Desktop & Portable Computer Hardware Sub-Committee Meeting #2 Minutes

Consideration of Themes

All themes were considered and those needing the most discussion in our group were identified as follows:

1. Interoperability – this relates primarily to AT-IT hardware interfaces in this sub-committee

2. Economic Impact – At least four groups were identified: consumers with disabilities, government agencies, industry developers (both AT and IT), and the economy in general. In regards to the latter, we felt it important to consider the economic impact of the Federal Government employing more people with disabilities, thus helping them become more financially independent and less dependent on federal social programs.

3. Harmonization – there is a need to look at the hardware provisions contained in other standards.

4. Emerging Products – try to think ahead and provide for innovations in hardware, both the ones we know about on the horizon, as well as things that haven’t been invented yet.

5. Cognition – in respect to hardware, we identified three “layers” of information transfer: a. Perception of function (exposure of hardware UI functions to the user and AT) b. Processing of Information (this is the job of AT) c. Input back to IT (the Action initiated by the user via AT) A number of other issues were identified as related to cognition and computer hardware. Some were: the use of color, icons, and shapes to help connect things (instead of written language). Other important considerations were finding people with expertise in the field of Learning Disabilities to sit on the sub-committee, and the need for research to help guide our decisions related to cognition.

Process The meeting evolved into more of a brainstorm discussion surrounding the themes and so a process was identified to help us organize the issues. Rex Lint volunteered to draft a chart with the themes down the left, and the 508 provisions related to hardware across the top. We will then fill in the chart with the issues.

ACTION: Rex Lint will post a draft matrix to the Wiki.

It was also suggested that we examine the User Needs document created by the JTC1 group.

ACTION: Michael Takemura will post the JTC1 User Needs document to the Wiki.

Section 1194.31 (f) We discussed the issue of why AT was left out of sub-part (f), when it was included in (a) – (e). We considered Doug Wakefield’s explanation of this, which was that there were mechanical interfaces related to mobility impairments, for which there is not AT (such as laptop latches, on/off buttons, etc). The intent was to not let IT manufacturers “off the hook” for accessibility requirements for which there is no AT. The problem here is that there IS AT for other access problems related to people with mobility impairments (such as mouse and keyboard alternatives).

We identified that there are access issues for which AT does not exist, and others for which it does. This is not a fact related to Mobility Impairments (sub-part f) only; it is the same for all types of disabilities. This bears out the need for a definition separating the Functional Performance Criteria into at least two categories: functions for which AT exists, and functions for which it does not.