- From: Peter Korn <peter.korn@oracle.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 11:21:03 -0700
- 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>
- Message-ID: <5088318F.80009@oracle.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