Note

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

Monday 8-27-2007 General telecon

MINUTES - Monday 8-27-2007 General telecon

1) Confirm minutes of Last meeting Monday_8-20-2007_General_telecon


2) Confirm this Agenda


3)EDITS

  • remove Words “, control, or activation,” from Biometric Identification Provision.
  • “product with color vision deficits.” should be "Products must provide at least one mode that allows access for people with color vision deficits."
  • ACTION: ACCEPTED


  • 4) Issue with 1.1-B
    • This was a very large problem in past (screen reader and enlarger)
    • Is AT incompatibility out of scope?
    • Not an E&IT manufacturers problem - they cant solve it
    • Provision is for Purchasing agents and agencies - not for MFGs. therefore needs to be here.
    • manufacturers use these too though - so how to separate their responsibility from purchasing responsibility
    • should this be a technical provision? (works with both screen reading and enlarging)
    • problem if IT works but then new AT breaks AT-IT working together
      • more common problem is that users (in gov and out) have older AT and IT only works with latest
    • is responsibility of manufacturer to provide?, or to report what is available?, for that particular disability etc.
    • the goal is for gov to purchase(or create) products that lead to accessible infrastructure.

Companies have no responsibility to report things but

  • ==== NOTES FROM THIS MEETING ===
  • "OR" option would make FPC 1 always satisfy FPC 2. Is there another way to address issue?


Review FPC status

  • ========= NOTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS ==============
  • FPC - purposes
    1. to fill in the gaps in technical provisions which were minimum
    2. to address all of the technologies not covered in technical provisions
    3. to address future technologies and interface techniques that we don't cover with technical provisions
  • Issues
    1. primarily - testability. they are good goals but how do you test them?
  • COmments
    • Problem if we make them aspirational without taking time to do all the additional technical - and still a problem for future technologies and what we dont think of.
    • Concern is both with some of the changes made to performance criteria
      • must work with AT instead of supporting AT
      • adding cognitive
      • no burden on AT to reciprocate
    • Government people looked at this and had a couple issues/problems
      1. Do FPC and Tech Provisions travel together or are they either/or
      2. They used to be later - so it gave us the ability to go back after people
      3. Don't want FPC to go away - but putting first was more problematic - and the ones that were added - though they close some gaps they draw attention to them.
      4. Haven't ..
    • Keep them 'broad'
    • Good for checking work after technical and for equivalent facilitation
    • If FPC are testable then they are a second set of technical requirements
    • There is a role of the FPC and we use them as check at end and when technology doesnt fall in Technical
    • Real issue is 'support for AT' vs works with AT. We work very closely with AT to make sure it works.
      • sometimes AT vendors cant work with us - even if we pay them.
      • both of us must play
      • not possible to 'work with all AT' or 'all versions of AT'
      • not possible to make all controls work with AT
    • a middle ground for this would be to say "FPC is for 'if you cant meet technical then do it some other way and say how you did it' "
    • change FPC into requirement for company to show how it tested and meets the requirements.
    • FPC must be criteria that can be met.
    • Cant be required to demonstrate that things work with AT that does not exist
    • FAQs both say it is AND and OR
    • should check with the Access Board to see what their intent was.
    • What is not working about what was there?
  • Need to look at FAQ language
  • need to figure out how to make it work so that AT needs to be available and work with product either at Technical or at FPC level
  • if at FPC level then FPC level needs to be mandated (Technical cant automatically meet FPC)
  • Don't have good enough AT-IT interop standard(s) at technical level to be able to ensure they work together just from technical specification without AT-IT interop testing.
  • We have taken the first step toward AT-IT spec. We know it is not complete. But it helps move away from jury-rigged solutions.
  • Being enabled is not sufficient.
  • Has to be some flexibility in FPC
  • ========= NOTES FROM THIS MEETING ==============
  • EWG:Section1.1_Updates
  • Proposal to separate conflicting roles of FPC
    • Good to see separation of aspiration and testable overall (RE proposal above)
  • if miss technical use can use them - why can't you use them in first place. If not testable before then not testable later.
  • Concern is having to test with ALL AT.
    • how much testing is enough?
  • What about when things break? Not necessarily easy to isolate and trace back. (Is it AT or IT that is the problem??)
    • In non-disability situation the integrator usually checks with the different pieces. With AT there are more variables.
  • What if administrator changes things. There is no way for us to assure that things will work.
  • It is about expecting that (since mfgr tested it) it will always work
  • It is about how it was tested with whom and in what environment.
  • AT-IT interoperability is better
  • We look at FPC when we are done as overall test. Work better at end.
  • Purpose of FPC is not that things are warrented to always work.. but that they were tried and did work. and conditions are given.
    • should FPC follow Technical because that is how used?
    • should used as overarching test - but mfgr not held to it not every future case not warranty of future only of purchase.





  1. Add a functional PC for "those without reach, without strength, who cannot touch the product" ?
    • ========= NOTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS ==============
    • 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
      • 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
    • Significant number of people
    • Lots of AT to address this population
    • Can address this measure by things as simple as USB port (wired or wireless - if easy way to pair wireless)
    • Question - regarding "closed".
      • Why is this different than other FPC that require built in for closed.
      • Like to have in FPC so that technical difficulties get solved.
    • Couldn't USB just be used to meet this provision.
    • If it isnt technically possible - then wont it just make people fail this for the next 5 years? Not easy is one thing. Not currently possible is another.
    • How many products could not be made open.
    • Adding a USB or URC or other way to connect alternate interfaces would make the product open.
    • Maybe "Unless the product CANNOT be made open...."
    • Like to find wording that would not pose the impossible but also would require people to do things.
    • If we use "CANNOT be made open -- " then we need to have good wording so that it is clear what CANNOT means and to make it not too easy to do.
    • Also - don't want to require non-standard ways of connection.
    • How about Voting and ATMs
      • Voting could allow access through a USB that did not have any central bus access (a special physically isolated USB that has nothing to do with the central processing but put only controls a circuit"button pushing" function.
      • For ATMs (and voting) combine the above technique along with the feature where when one approach is being used the other interface approach is disabled -- to prevent people from messing with another persons interactions.
    • reasons something could not be opened.
      • Technical reason
        • Products that need to be in sealed environment - (but could use wireless....)
        • If software needed to be installed this could be a barrier. AT would have to mirror the interface and not just be a switch or software might have to already be in the device
      • Policy
        • security
        • interference (ATM) (VOTING )
    • Wireless connections could be possible.
      • need to use standard drivers (keyboard etc) or need new standards.
    • Need to include costs if we are talking about building AT in.
    • Why is this different than other provisions. We can cite expensive solutions to all of the categories.
    • Why would AT connection be more than all the ones above.
    • CONCLUSION AT 8-13 MEETING
    • CURRENT WORDING CANDIDATES SO FAR
      1. Where product is not closed ...
      2. Unless the product cannot be designed to accept AT in a standard way, there .
    • This is not ready for prime time - just our status at this time.
    • Need to look at costs but also whether this is really no different than any of the other FPC.
    • Will fill out template and post for review. And post to list.
    • ========= NOTES FROM THIS MEETING ==============





,

  1. BIOS ISSUE
    • ========= NOTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS ==============
      • 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.
    • This topic is closed as far as GENERAL
      • The three pieces of this issue are covered by three different groups.
      • Access to the bios when the computer is up and running is covered by Closed Functionality Provision
        • All functionality (e.g. setting the bios functions) should be operable directly or via AT. Since AT doesnt work during boot they should be operable from OS after booting (to take affect on reboot)
      • If OS will not boot to OS - then computer is broken and this is covered by PartA which should say that this is not normal operation and 508 doestn need to be met under these conditions
      • If there is an operation during boot - like password where BIOS password is required by agency - then large enough print and an audible cue as to when to type the password would allow this to be direct access since instructions can be given on one time basis and only thing that is needed for operation is to know when to type the password.
    • ========= NOTES FROM THIS MEETING ==============



.

  1. Cognitive FPC
    • ========= NOTES FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS ==============
    • 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?
      • RESOLUTION FROM 7-9-07 - 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.
    • === Latest meeting===
      • The working group is looking for sufficient technical provisions to support the inclusion of a FPC.
    • ========= NOTES FROM THIS MEETING ==============



  1. New provisions needed but not yet defined by any group

Action Items (Individuals)

FOLLOW-UP ISSUES

  1. Color
  2. Flash and Contrast


FUTURE MEETING SCHEDULE

  • All meetings/calls at 1230P Eastern Time unless otherwise noted
  • Schedule at Calendar

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University