Re: Closed non-embedded content???

True, if we are strictly looking at "functionality".  A device might be 
closed to 3rd party AT, but might have built-in AT, and so the idea of 
it "being closed to AT" isn't quite right.  That's my main point.


Peter

On 10/23/2012 10:50 AM, Hoffman, Allen wrote:
>
> Why is it limited to 3^rd party?
>
> I could see something being closed to voiceover.Also, in another 
> mobile setting there is a screen reader which isn't 3^rd party, but 
> which is not by default included on the phone either, so 3^rd party 
> delineation might be less a bright line than it seems.
>
> I would ask the question:
>
> Is this closed functionality really within the scoping of the 
> WCAG-ICT?Seems pretty far out from original scoping to me.I can 
> connect the dots, but they seem pretty far apart.When WCAG starts 
> defining closed it seems we are beyond the scope and well in to 
> territory for regulators.
>
> *From:*Peter Korn [mailto:peter.korn@oracle.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, October 23, 2012 1:39 PM
> *To:* Hoffman, Allen
> *Cc:* Gregg Vanderheiden; Kiran Kaja; Loïc Martínez Normand; Michael 
> Pluke; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org Force; stf416@etsi.org; Mary Jo 
> Mueller; Peter Korn
> *Subject:* Re: Closed non-embedded content???
>
> 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; Loïc Martínez Normand; Michael 
> Pluke; Peter Korn; public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-wcag2ict-tf@w3.org> Force; stf416@etsi.org 
> <mailto: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 <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
>

-- 
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