No Ability to Reach or Touch Product

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 ==============