W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org > October 2012

Re: Closed non-embedded content???

From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:21:03 -0700
Message-ID: <5088318F.80009@oracle.com>
To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
CC: "Hoffman, Allen" <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>, Kiran Kaja <kkaja@adobe.com>, Loďc Martínez Normand <loic@fi.upm.es>, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>, "public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force" <public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org>, "stf416@etsi.org" <stf416@etsi.org>, Mary Jo Mueller <maryjom@us.ibm.com>
Gregg,

Whichever we do, my point is that enough people may think of built-in 
accessibility tools like VoiceOver as "AT" that we should be clear in 
our definitions.


Peter

On 10/23/2012 7:55 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> This is interesting.  I have always thought of AT as being 3rd party 
> -- or else all closed functionality will become open when you add the 
> alternate access that the closed functionality requires -- which then 
> triggers the need to expose information to AT but you can't - because 
> it is closed to outside AT.
>
> OR you have closed functionality (to third party AT) but it is 
> labelled as not closed because you have some (but not all ) built in AT.
>
> So I think it is best to either not define built in accessibility as 
> AT.   OR define closed functionality as lack of access by 3rd party AT.
>
>
> /Gregg/
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Director Trace R&D Center
> Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
> and Biomedical Engineering University of Wisconsin-Madison
> Technical Director - Cloud4all Project - http://Cloud4all.info
> Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International - 
> http://Raisingthefloor.org
> and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project - http://GPII.net
>
> On Oct 23, 2012, at 1:39 PM, Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com 
> <mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>> Allen, all,
>>
>> I think enough people would term things like built in screen reading 
>> functionality (e.g. VoiceOver) as "Assistive Technology", we need to 
>> be more pedantic.  This is about being closed to "3rd party AT".
>>
>>
>> Peter
>>
>> On 10/23/2012 8:42 AM, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
>>>
>>> I agree with the final definition proposed at the bottom.
>>>
>>> *From:*Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
>>> *Sent:* Monday, October 22, 2012 9:04 PM
>>> *To:* Gregg Vanderheiden; Kiran Kaja; Loďc Martínez Normand; Michael 
>>> Pluke; Peter Korn; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force; stf416@etsi.org; 
>>> Mary Jo Mueller
>>> *Subject:* Re: Closed non-embedded content???
>>>
>>> *GV: See below*
>>>
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Snipped from Section 508 ANPRM:
>>> /Closed Functionality./  Characteristics that prevent a user from 
>>> attaching or installing assistive technology.  Examples of ICT with 
>>> closed functionality are self-service machines, information kiosks, 
>>> set-top boxes, and devices like printers, copiers, fax machines, and 
>>> calculators.
>>>
>>> *GV:  again - "characteristics"  are not functionality.  So the 
>>> definition is about something other than the term.*
>>>
>>> *Even the examples show the problem.  First none of them 
>>> are characteristics (they are devices), so they can't be examples of 
>>> this definition -- which is "characteristics".     Second, they also 
>>> are not examples of functionality -- so again they can't be examples 
>>> of the main term either. *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> From TIETAC report
>>> *Closed Product Functionality: *Functionality of a product where 
>>> ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY can not be used to achieve some or all of the 
>>> functionality of the electronic user interface components for any 
>>> reason including hardware, software, platform, license, or policy 
>>> limitation.
>>>
>>> *GV:  This one works better.     closed product functionality --- is 
>>> functionality that ..... *
>>>
>>> *it probably should have just been "closed functionality"   rather 
>>> than "closed product functionality" which confounds closed 
>>> functionality with closed products.   It should apply to 
>>> closed functionality in open products as well. *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Snipped from Current Section 508 instead defined Self-contained, 
>>> closed products:
>>> */Self Contained, Closed Products/.* Products that generally have 
>>> embedded software and are commonly designed in such a fashion that a 
>>> user cannot easily attach or install assistive technology. These 
>>> products include, but are not limited to, information kiosks and 
>>> information transaction machines, copiers, printers, calculators, 
>>> fax machines, and other similar types of products.
>>>
>>> *GV:  This is very restrictive and only focuses on closed products 
>>> rather than functionality.   TEITAC specifically decided to move 
>>> beyond closed products. *
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Proposal for a more precise definition:Characteristics that prevent 
>>> a user from attaching or installing assistive technology to access 
>>> the functionality of a product.
>>>
>>> *GV:  This focuses back on characteristics rather than functionality. *
>>>
>>> *you have to be able to plug the definition in for the term.   It 
>>> may be wordy, but it should work.  Characteristics doesn’t. *
>>>
>>> *GV:  SUGGEST:  A variant on TEITAC*
>>>
>>> *Closed Functionality: *Functionality of a product where ASSISTIVE 
>>> TECHNOLOGY can not be used to provide alternate control and 
>>> presentation needed by people with different disabilities.
>>>
>>> Examples include log in screen function (if it occurs before any 
>>> assistive technologies are allowed to load, ebook text presentation 
>>> (if AT is not allowed to access the text for alternate 
>>> presentation),  public kiosk functionality (where the kiosk is 
>>> locked down and AT cannot be connected or installed) and copier 
>>> control (where the copier does not allow attachment of assistive 
>>> technologies physically or via the network to provide alternate 
>>> control and display of information presented by the physical displays).
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>> *
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> <oracle_sig_logo.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/>
>> Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
>> Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
>> 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064
>> <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle 
>> is committed to developing practices and products that help protect 
>> the environment
>

-- 
Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal
Phone: +1 650 5069522 <tel:+1%20650%205069522>
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064
Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to 
developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 18:25:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:17:47 UTC