Monday 7-9-2007 General telecon

   * Tom Albin, Auburn Engineers
   * Michael Takemura
   * Dianna Green, IRS
   * Deb Cook: ADA & IT centers
   * terry weaver - gsa
   * Alex Li (SAP)
   * Shannon Rapuano - IBM
   * GreggVan (Trace)
   * Jim Elekes (Access Board)

MINUTES FOR 7-9-07 MEETING

1. Confirm minutes of Last meeting Monday 6-25-2007 General telecon
   • Amended and APPROVED as Amended
2. Confirm this Agenda - do we have all that we need for next Draft?
3. Color
   • Use language from WCAG? (adapted to 508)
     • • "Any information that is conveyed by color differences must also simultaneously be visually evident without the color differences."
       • We need to agree with Web and Software for harmonization.
       • Should we just defer to the definition of Web Software Group?
   • DECISION: Send a note to EWG to say that what goes in the General Technical Requirements section for COLOR should mirror the COLOR provision in WEB except for editorial removal of the word "CONTENT" if it appears in the Web Version". It should look something like "Any information that is conveyed by color differences must also simultaneously be visually evident without the color differences." but may be somewhat different.
4. Add a functional PC for "those without reach, without strength, who cannot touch the product" ?
   • No proposals appeared on list for us to consider.
   • Closed group suggested we add "Except for closed products,..." to the front of the provision.
   • Closed group also pointed out some other issues that should be taken into account.
     • Closed group notes are at [http://teitac.org/wiki/Edit_notes_to_go_onto_new_July_6_Draft_when_it_is_opened_for_comment#Proposal_to_the_GENERAL_Group_for_1.1_H_-_With_No_Reach_or_Touch Proposal_to_the_GENERAL_Group_for_1.1_H_-_With_No_Reach_or_Touch
   • NOTES FROM MEETING
     • Possibility of referring to existing NIST Security standards for wireless.
     • Two arenas where there are problems cited for use of AT to meet this:
       1. Closed products
       2. Public places (User can't physically connect and wireless would often need to be authorized to prevent bystanders from controlling and interfering)
          • SOLUTION?: Public devices are either used from standard interface or from wireless but not both so no interference or permission is required.
            • This would require a wireless connection on all public devices
            • The wireless connection would also have to be secure and not allow other access to device
            • Is there something like this today?
            • Also a privacy concern.
     • This provision like others would be overridden by needs of the application (e.g. voting). And if it cant be done it will just be ignored. (e.g. in applications where security and /or privacy are important, security or privacy would override).
   • CURRENT CONSENSUS:
     • That this is a complicated issue and it is still in open discussion within the group. We have not yet been able to determine
       • how it should be worded
       • or if it can work as a FPC
       • or if it is covered by other provisions as well as it can be
       • or if other provisions should be modified so that it is covered there.
   • SUGGESTIONS FOR ACTION FROM HERE
     • Find out more about security provisions that might be applied here (Terry Weaver looking into this)
     • Create examples of devices where this might be applied and where it would be a problem (everyone)
     • Suggest specific wording that might be used.
     • Clearly separate the issues around AT from those for BUILT IN
     • Create a list of the BUILT IN ways of providing access to those who cannot touch.
       1. Voice
       2. Eye gaze
       3. Head movement/pointing
5. Photo-Seizure
   • Need to address non-software aspects
   • Proposal on our workpage Working Draft of General Results
   • CONSENSUS: Group agree that CONTRAST and FLASH should both be distributed into Sofware/Web and Hardware and only brought back up to General Technical Requirements if it is confusing to readers to see different CONTRAST or FLASH wording in different areas. This issue is now transferred out of General Group.
6. BIOS ISSUE
   • • Does this break down into two parts?
       1. Bios settings that are normal operation (and would be covered by CLOSED provision) ?
       2. Times when you end up in the Bios unexpectedly because program has malfunctioned (and does 508 apply to a product that has failed?)
          • If system routinely fails into BIOS and customers are given friendly feedback on what to do (and are expected to get themselves out of it) then is this routine operation or failure/maintenance?
     • Since this comes up all the time for developers - should it have it own provision or be handled as above
   • ACTIONS TO TAKE TO RESOLVE
     1. Confirmation from Access Board (?) or TEITAC (?) that failure is outside of 508 requirements.
     2. List examples of products and techniques that provide access to BIOS.
7. Cognitive FPC
   • At least one mode shall be provided that accommodates cognitive, language or learning impairments, directly or with users' AT.
   • Is this harder than other FPC
   • Better wording?
   • Cost benefit language?
     • DECISION - Add following note to current draft item on cognitive: "This provision is here as a placeholder. The general group identified the following issues and questions in trying to move this forward.
       1. Should we have an FPC when we dont have very many technical provisions saying to this would be done?
       2. The range and variety of cognitive, language and learnign disabilities is so wide that the question arises , could any product meet this FPC for the full range of people with CLL disabilities.
   • Cognitive still needs more work.
8. New provisions needed but not yet defined by any group