Report to TEITAC Committee - Feb 2007 Meeting

2nd Report of General Committee

2/6/2007

Executive summary

Purpose of committee

1. to look at cross technology issues
2. to look at issue of combined 508 255 guidelines
3. to look at Functional Performance Criteria
4. to look at issues not covered by other groups

Summary of conclusions and deliverables

This is our second report. In summary we have

1. A proposal for a way to combine the 508 and 255 guidelines
   • it is called a ‘blended approach’ since it blends a number of different approaches that we explored.
2. A first pass at wording for Functional Performance Criteria
   • Still preliminary since we feel it is tied into the structure of the guildelines
3. A method for viewing the guidelines in different ways that also allows filtering by product characteristics
   • It also shows which guidelines benefit which disabilities
4. An initial set of characteristics that can be used to sort the provisions
   • These are very preliminary – first pass tagging (proof of concept only)
   • Will need to be refined when provisions are final
   • They are practical rather than academic in nature. Selected to optimize sorting. NOT categorical.
5. A very rough (4 days old) tool to sort provisions.

We have also reached the following conclusions

1. Because there is simply too much convergence and blending, as well as provisions that apply across product types, the provisions can't be uniquely sorted by “product type” (with each provision appearing under only one product).
2. Because there are too many provisions that benefit multiple disabilities, the provisions also can't be uniquely sorted by ‘disability’ (with each provision appearing under only one disability).
3. However a unified set of provisions (combining 508 and 255) does appear to be achievable. We still have work to do but the “blended approach’ looks like it can work.
4. Also we recognize the utility of being able to group or view the provisions by product characteristics or disability. We have developed a means of tagging the provisions to allow this. A preliminary set of tags is provided below.
   • These are very preliminary – first pass tagging (proof of concept only)
   • Will need to be refined when provisions are final
   • They are practical rather than academic in nature. Selected to optimize sorting. NOT categorical.
   • Tagging with “product characteristics” can make it easier to locate those that would apply (or potentially apply) to a product.
     1. This is most useful for product developers. It is a bit harder to use for purchasing agents (at RFP time) since they would not necessarily know the characteristics of all products that will be offered. (e.g. does it include a touch screen or ‘soft keys’?) But it can be by purchasing agents at bid evaluation time once the characteristics of the products proposed are known.
5. That functional performance criteria were still needed for the same reasons

3+ Views

The approach the group came up with allows multiple views. We currently have 3 major views

1. full unique presentation view
   • each provision appears just once
   • this is the ‘blended view
2. Filtered Views
   • Allows users to filter the full view to see just the provisions of interest to them
   • Two views available right now
     1. By set of product characteristics
     2. By disabilities that would be helped by the provision
     3. ( At meeting – view by Product Type - was also demonstrated)

A preliminary tool to demonstrate this for “set of product characteristics’ is available at http://trace.wisc.edu/semipub/filter/tool.html. It uses the ‘Blended “ format to organize the provisions and the product characteristics list below for filtering.

Details

The Headings from the blended approach organization

The headings were chosen to allow the provisions to be organized in a fashion that did not cause provisions to fall into multiple categories, yet to make it easier to find individual provisions. NOTE that the product characteristics (below) can also be used to both filter and group the provisions in different ways to meet different needs. Between the Blended Format (which allows linear non-redundant presentation) and the sorting characteristics below (which allow regrouping and filtering) we have tried to address most of the needs. Additional tags can always be used for reordering but we tried to keep them to a minimum.

1) Provide at least one mode which allows full use of product directly or with users' AT…

• w/o vision
• w/o hearing
• w/ low vision w/o using audio
• w/o color perception
• w/o speech
• w/o fine motor or simultaneous action or much reach
• w/ limited cognitive, language, and learning skills

2) Don't block use

3) Facilitate ability to use default mode

• General
  • Comprehension
  • Interaction
  • User preference settings
  • Time limits
• Input Devices
  • General
  • Keyboard and keypads
  • Pointing devices
  • Touchscreens
• Output Devices
  • General
  • Audio output
  • Media
  • Content

4) Provide an alternate mode

• General
• Alternate Output
• Media alternate presentation
  • Captions
  • Audio description (of video)

5) Suppport use of assistive technology

• Software support of AT
  • Provide AT with acccess to all information
  • Allow AT to control all function
  • Provide Windows services important to installed AT
• Support connections to external alternate presenters/controllers
  • TTY {or Equivalent Format for IP if on IP}

6) Documentation, help, and support services

• Documentation and help
• Support services

7) Support tools

• Process guidance
• Authoring tools
• Install programs and startup

The product sorting/filtering characteristics

The user would check all characteristics that apply. Provisions that would apply to their product could then be highlighted, sorted to the top, left showing, etc.

• Has Physical Controls or connectors (incl. latches, slots,etc?)
• Has Touchscreen or Softkeys or Touch Sensitive Buttons
• Uses Mouse/pointer Input
• Uses Keyboard (Physical - touch typeable)
• Has Printed text, labels, etc on the product itself
• Has Visual Display with Text
• Has Visual Display with Graphics
• Uses Color (on keys, labels, displays, indicators, anywhere etc.)
• Sound Output (Other than speech)
• Speech Out (inlcuding conversation)
• Speaker held to ear or product projects large magnetic field
• Speech Transmission over PSTN (analog phone)
• Speech Transmission over IP (Digital)
• Speech In (Control or conversation))
• Has Biometric Identification Feature
• Has time Synchronized Media
• Has Time limits of any type (timeout, double-clicks, keyrepeat)
• Has User Documentation (Any type - electronic or print)
• Has Customer Support / Training
• Has OS that supports installed AT and user can install
• No OS that supports installed AT or OS/Hardware Locked
• Passes information/data through
• Has electronic forms (Web & other Electronic)
• Involves Web Content or Applications
• Product Allows User Preferences
• All Products

Concluding comments.

All of the above are works in progress. But they should server their primary goal which was to see if an approach like this could work. The final number, form and wording of the provisions would of course cause changes.