- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:55:07 -0400
- To: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Cc: "Hoffman, Allen" <Allen.Hoffman@HQ.DHS.GOV>, Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, 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>
- Message-id: <70A20811-4624-4263-84D4-1ECD3BBC374D@trace.wisc.edu>
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> 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> > Peter Korn | Accessibility Principal > Phone: +1 650 5069522 > 500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood City, CA 94064 > <green-for-email-sig_0.gif> Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment
Received on Wednesday, 24 October 2012 02:55:46 UTC