Date: Fri, 5 Jul 1996 09:52:58 ­0500
From: gv@trace.wisc.edu
To: Multiple recipients of list <taac­l@trace.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Comments on Covered Equipment

SBerger wrote:

I have been thinking about the discussions on defining covered equipment. I am wondering if tying the definition to other telecommunications regulations wouldn't have some real advantages. In this thought, the covered equipment would be all equipment required to meet FCC Part 68, 22, 24 etc. To get to the user interfaces it would need to be broadened to equipment which provides the user interface for such telecommunications equipment.

The advantages I see are that everybody already knows what has to meet these parts. So for the directly covered equipment the inclusion would be very definite. The equipment which attaches to such equipment and supplies the user interface would be new, butI think this definition is pretty definite. Also, it gets easier to make sure that the right people get notified and trained in the new requirements. There are fairly good lines of communication for those responsible in various companies for compliance with various areas of regulation. So the appropriate maganzines and newsletters would naturally stories that Part 68 equipment must now meet the access guidelines.

What do you think?

Stephen Berger

(Reply)

Hi Steve,

Interesting.

A problem might be that this really looks sideways and back but not necessarily forward. Are computers, personal computers or PDA's covered under any of those titles parts? What if i attach a cell phone to them? what if I pup a cell modem into one? What if I just have a regular computer connected to an internet via a fibre optic line (e.g. no phone lines) but i use it to make phone calls using net­phone?

I'm afrain i'm not familiar enough with FCC Part 68, 22, 24 etc. to know if this is a problem or not.

Gregg

Date: Sat, 6 Jul 1996 05:33:58 ­0500
From: SBerger822@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <taac­l@trace.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Comments on Covered Equipment

My purpose in framing the definition of covered equipment as I have is to make it as specific and concrete as possible and secondly, make it so that it will be straight forward to contact and train the right people in the affected companies. Part 68 is required for any equipment which connectes to the telephone network. Parts 22 & 24 cover cellular phones. Our friends at the FCC can tell us is we are missing anything here. [I think we should bounce this off the right people at the FCC. Is there anyone who is in an easy position to do this?] But we now have all telecommunications hardware covered.

By adding, and equipment which provides the user interface to such equipment, I believe we cover all the equipment you suggested. Any PC, PDA or other device which connects a person to their modem, cellular modem etc. would be covered.

I think that if we can keep the definition this specific and simple, or something close to it, in the long run it will be easier to administer.

Sincerely,

Stephen Berger

Date: Tue, 9 Jul 1996 07:30:16 ­0500
From: Teclgl@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <taac­l@trace.wisc.edu>
Subject: Alternative approach

I have with interest read Steve Berger's and Gregg Vanderheiden's contributions on "Covered Equipment". Here is a different approach that does not take an existing Regulatory Framework into account (I think Gregg has a point here), but is more user­oriented. I wrote it shortly after our first TAAC meeting but wanted to test it on some of my colleagues first, before I sent it out to the TAAC membership, so it is a bit old by now. I offer it to you as food for thought and welcome any comments you may have to it.

Best regards,
Lars­Goran Larsson
Ericsson
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
73;­­­­­­­­­­­­­
While we on Friday (of June 14) were discussing definitions, the difference between Telecommunications Services and Information Services, etc., I tried to find a way to simplify and focus the discussion on what we needed to do. I almost made it but had to spend some more time to finalize my thinking. Here is my proposal for your consideration.

Accessibility to Telecommunications is in my view a Human Interface Issue, determined by Inputs and Outputs and how these can be manipulated. Paul Schroeder mentioned Input and Output at several occasions, which formed the basis for my thinking. My suggestion is that we deal with Input and Output separately and that we split each of them into three phases. Let's start with the Output.

The first phase of the Output I call ALERT. In the telephony case, an Alert can be a Ring Signal, a Vibration from a Pager, a Flashing Light if the ring signal cannot be heard, etc. We need to identify the different kinds of Alerts, check how accessible they are and how they can be made more accessible.

The second phase I simply call ACTION. The Action is triggered by the Alert and can, again referring to telephony, be to go Off­Hook (e.g. lift the receiver). Here we need to identify the Actions, check their accessibility and see how they can be made more accessible. The purpose of the Action is "to open the communications channel", which leads to the third phase.

The third phase is a (one­ or two­way) Telecommunications Session. Focusing on the Output, we need to understand what functions are needed in order to convey information to the user and what affects the accessibility.

Moving to the Input I call the first phase INITIALIZATION. A simple example is to go Off­Hook on a normal telephone. We need to understand what types of Initialization there are and how to make them more accessible.

The second phase I again call ACTION. It's purpose, like in the Output case, is to open the communications channel. An Action can e.g. be to dial a telephone number. What are the accessibility requirements on the various types of Actions we can think of here?

The third phase is again a Telecommunications Session now with focus on Input. What requirements are there for delivery of information by the user to the "System" and how can these functions be made more accessible? Of course, in a two­way communications session, both the Inputs and the Outputs have to be addressed simultaneously.

It seems to me that the first two phases are CPE­related while the third phase (both Input and Output) is both CPE and Telecommunications Equipment related.

The next logical step is to design a matrix with these 3 + 3 phases on the vertical axis and the different types of disabilities that we are dealing with on the horizontal axis. For each piece of equipment covered, we can put an X in the appropriate box if accessibility is "readily achievable" or a number from 1 and up, if not readily achievable. In an attachment each number will be explained as to why the function is not accessible, how it can be made accessible through internal means or by the use of accessories, the cost, time and practical implications of modificatons, etc. The matrix can also be used as a template by all designers of telecom equipment and CPE, so that the specific requirements by the disabled community can be considered at an early stage of the design. I am sure this will spur innovation.

I may have simplified the situation too much by proposing these ideas but I still hope they can be used as a basis for further work. I appreciate any comments you may have.

Date: Wed, 10 Jul 1996 14:42:43 ­0500
From: Nancy W. Macklin
Subject: comments on covered equipment

Brenda Battat here.

Have been reading with interest all the creative energy being generated on the listserve.

I do have a comment on Stephen Berger's recommendations for framing the definition of covered equipment to be as concrete and specific as possible. I see this as having limitations. The example I would use is the one of digital wireless phones. If they are required to comply with part 68 and the standard for telecoil comaptibility this greatly limits the options for industry to come up with ways to couple hearing aids and digital wireless phones. The work going on right now to try to make digital wireless phones interference free and hearing aid compatible would be greatly hampered by being bound by part 68. There is a very good chance that it may not be technically feasible to do it within the existing part 68 standard but that a standard change will be needed and therefore we don't want to lock ourselves in but rather create guidelines which can work for the future also.

Brenda Battat, SHHH

Date: Thu, 11 Jul 1996 19:28:24 ­0500
From: "Jim Fruchterman" <jim@arkenstone.org>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taac­l@trace.wisc.edu>
Subject: Covered Equipment

I was pleased to see the discussion progressing on covered equipment, and had some brief points to make. I have gotten a lot of feedback via email from consumers, which I will summarize later in more depth.

1. I liked Lars direction quite well. Telecomm can't be considered without dealing with the human interface. Borrowing from Tim Cranmer's point, controlling the telecomm session is part of the access issue. You need to make control inputs and get control feedback outputs. Then, the next issue is the actual telecom information, be it voice, etext, video, fax whatever. This is a four item matrix, with two inputs and two outputs, two I/O pairs involving control and two involving communication. Depending on the disability, a given telecom session creates different problems for different people. The blind person may have difficulty controlling the telecom device but little problem speaking and listening to the voice communication. A deaf person may be able to control the device but have access problems with the voice.

2. Steve's FCC Part 68 suggestion. While this makes it simple to figure out who is covered, I'm not sure it will be enough to provide access to telecom. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the modem on my PC is the only part that is subject to Part 68. I'm interested in making telecom equipment accessible, not just the modem part of the telecom equipment. In practical terms, the modem manufacturers can't do anything for us. That's not where the user issues of control and access to the content are.

Also, just because we feel a specific piece of equipment is covered by our recommendations, that doesn't necessarily mean that our recs will imply changes. Other than the issue of Baudot support, I doubt that there are many access issues that would affect a modem. Most of the access issues affect a layer of telecom above modems and their kind.

Jim Fruchterman

Date: Mon, 22 Jul 1996 21:08:34 ­0500
From: Jabrewerrr@aol.com
To: Multiple recipients of list <taac­l@trace.wisc.edu>
Subject: ACM97

The following notice describes ACM97, the Association for Computing Machinery's annual conference, to be held in March, 1997, in San Jose. Given that it is ACM's 50th anniversay, it promises to be a major event ­­ and an event where we would do well to ensure that issues of accessible computing and universal design are represented.

Additional information about ACM97 is available at http://www.acm.org/acm97
The deadline for preliminary proposals for exhibits is September 3, 1996.

Judy Brewer
Massachusetts Assistive Technology Partnership

­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

NEW YORK­­(BUSINESS WIRE)­­June 25, 1996­­The Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) has announced that some of the industry's most influential companies, Computerworld Inc., Hewlett­Packard Company, Intel Corporation, Microsoft Corporation, Simply Interactive Internet Company, and Sun Microsystems, Inc., have each contributed $250,000 to underwrite ACM97, a worldwide interactive event on the next fifty years of computing.

ACM97 includes a futuristic expo, plenary sessions, World Wide Web site and book. ACM97 will be held March 1­5, 1997, at the San Jose Convention Center. The event will spark discussion and debate with insights and comment from global leaders in industry, academia, research, government and conference participants. Together they will examine the longterm future of information technology and its impacts.

ACM97 is the celebration of the Association's 50th anniversary. Tens of thousands of people are expected to attend the Expo portion of ACM97 that is free and open to the public for four days. The Expo will transform the convention center into a world of high­tech pavilions and computer­animation theaters highlighting a variety of computing domains and will demonstrate how each will impact our future.

A large international group of more than two thousand futurists, policy makers and thought leaders will attend a three­day series of presentations by some of the industries foremost authorities. A state­of­the­art computerized audience response system will allow conference participants to provide immediate feedback to speakers throughout their presentations.

ACM97 is being organized by computer networking pioneer, IDG Vice President of Technology and Infoworld Columnist, Robert M. Metcalfe. He said recently that "ACM97 aims to do more than brainstorm about the future ­­ if we do a good job, we can change the future for the better. We are inviting some of the world's best thinkers and speakers to examine the longterm future of information technology and its impacts. This discussion is vital for every industry that uses technology since it gives us a more informed basis for the decisions we make today."

An Internet web site will serve as a continuing forum for discussion on the longterm future of computing, and an associated book entitled "Beyond Calculation, The Next 50 Years of Computing" will be published by Copernicus, a division of Springer­Verlag and distributed at ACM97 and worldwide thereafter.

Speakers

Speakers for ACM97 to date include:

­­ Gordon Bell, computer pioneer and Microsoft senior researcher, on the folly of prediction

­­ Joel Birnbaum, director of Hewlett­Packard Laboratories, on nonelectronic computing

­­ Vinton Cerf, the "Father of the Internet" and MCI vice president of data architecture, on the Internet

­­ Bran Ferren, Walt Disney Imagineering's vice president of creative technology, on entertainment

­­ Fernando Flores, international commerce consultant and chairman of Business Design Associates, on business communications

­­ Brenda Laurel, Interval Research's computers and theater artist researcher, on culture

­­ Pattie Maes, Massachusetts Institute of Technology associate professor, on software agents and software ecology

­­ Carver Mead, Gordon and Betty Moore professor of engineering and applied sciences, California Institute of Technology, on semiconductors

­­ Nathan Myhrvold, Microsoft's vice president of applications and content, on software

­­ Raj Reddy, dean, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University; on research

­­ Elliot Soloway, professor, University of Michigan, on K­12 education

­­ Bruce Sterling, science fiction and non­fiction writer, on society

ACM97 Expo

ACM97's Expo will feature a world of futuristic pavilions, beyond state­of­the­art computer­animation theaters, and a computer art and photography gallery. The exposition will be open and free to the general public from Saturday, March 1, through Tuesday, March 4.

Honorary Committee Members

The ACM's 49 member 50th Anniversary Honorary Committee includes luminaries Bill Gates, Microsoft Corporation; Adele Goldberg, ParcPlace Systems; Steve Jobs, Pixar; Herb Simon, Nobel Prize Laureate; and Ken Thompson, Lucent Technologies; and is co­chaired by Fran Allen, IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, and Bill Joy, Sun Microsystems Inc.

Dan Lynch, chairman of CyberCash, founder of Interop Company, and co­chair of ACM's 50th Anniversary Committee, said "ACM97 will give conference attendees a unique opportunity to take an active role in discussing and predicting the direction of information technology. This insight into the future will further enhance their ability to make strategic decisions today."

The Book

"Beyond Calculation, The Next 50 Years of Computing," will feature a collection of invited essays from information technology visionaries, many of whom are members of the ACM 50th Anniversary Honorary Committee and scheduled plenary speakers. The book, edited by computer science Professor Peter Denning of George Mason University and Bob Metcalfe, will be published by Copernicus/Springer­Verlag, and given to all conference attendees. It will also be offered for sale to the public.

About the ACM

ACM is a major force in advancing the skills of information technology professionals and students. ACM serves its global membership by delivering cutting edge technical information and transferring ideas from theory to practice. ACM, with its world­class journals and magazines, dynamic special interest groups, numerous conferences, workshops, and electronic forums, is a primary resource to the IT field. For additional information about ACM see http://www.acm.org on the World Wide Web.

CONTACT:

Terrie Phoenix
ACM
212/626­0531
phoenix@acm.org

or

Liana Hawes or
Patricia Mozzillo
TSI
212 696­2000

KEYWORD: NEW YORK
INDUSTRY KEYWORD: COMPUTERS/ELECTRONICS COMED TELECOMMUNICATIONS
NTERACTIVE/MULTIMEDIA/INTERNET

BW1408 JUN 25,1996

Date: Sun, 28 Jul 1996 11:00:17 ­0500
From: B0FBYGQ@FS1710.BELL­ATL.COM
To: Multiple recipients of list <taac­l@trace.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: Alternative approach

Lars,

I read your proposal several times and thought much before responding back with my input. I think you have a good basis (foundation) to examine the issue, but we must look at technology when placing items into outputs/inputs and determining the appropriate action to be taken. I am primarily speaking to the analog versus digital technology and how the network assimilates the information being transmitted. I would propose that you factor in a fourth phase in your approach dealing with the technology aspect, analog versus digital. This will help to show what is fully accessible, partially accessible and not accessible at all. Once determining whether or not the techonology is accessible will help us to determine a direction to go with. i don't forsee any CPE solution being accessible if the network is not sendinf the correct information. Just some food for thought.

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 07:34:03 ­0500
From: "Jacobs, Steve I" <jacobsi@srdpost.daytonoh.ncr.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taac­l@trace.wisc.edu>
Subject: Covered Equipment

Anyone's thoughts, relating to Automated Teller Machines (ATMs), self­service and information kiosks falling within the definitions of Telecommunications Equipment and/or Customer Premises Equipment, would be most appreciated.

A few facts and trends to keep in mind . . .

Most banks have ATMs on their premises;

Several lines of ATMs enable consumers to two­way video­conference with a live teller;

Several lines of ATMs enable consumers to "talk­to­a­teller" using a steel­cabled handset similar to those used with pay phones.

It's well within the realm of possibility to assume that in the near future ATMs, self­service and informational kiosks will enable consumers to do such things as send someone an e­mail message, perform a query on the most competitive interest rates for savings accounts, shop, participate in surveys (consumer, political, etc.). The possibilities are endless . . .

The following facts motivate me to leave no stone unturned, and deem nothing impossible, when trying to address telecommunications access issues:

"The degree of benefit and effectiveness, of all telecommunications products and services, are directly proportional to the ability of the consumer to see, read, hear, speak, mentally process information and physically move about freely. Without these people­based abilities no one would be able to access telecommunications products or services . .and there would have been no need to have formed our Telecommunications Access Advisory Committee."

We all have the opportunity to establish guidelines that can help and encourage companies to manufacture accessible products, in every sense of the word, in the concept and definition phases of their product development life­cycles. Let's leave no stone unturned!

Date: Thu, 1 Aug 1996 06:43:40 ­0500
From: "Jacobs, Steve I" <jacobsi@srdpost.daytonoh.ncr.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <taac­l@trace.wisc.edu>
Subject: FYI and Comments

Article Summary: USA TODAY, Wednesday, July 31, 1996 Section B Page 1 .

Headline: "Banks discover ATMs can generate money too"

Selected quotes:

"Automated teller machines (ATMs) are dispensing more than cash these days"

"Banks look at ATMs as a way to generate additional revenue and also as a waepon to differentiate themselves from their competition."

"Wells Fargo's ATMs sell stamps."

Selected St. Louis­based Boatmen's Bankshares, Georgia­based Columbus Bank Trust, Columbus State University, Fleet Financial Group and BankAmerica ATMs dispense coupons.

First Union Federal Savings Bank sells advertising on their ATMs.

In my opinion, this is just the tip of the iceberg.

Comments concerning the inclusion of ATMs, self­service and informational kiosks, as telecommunication devices would be appreciated.

Steve Jacobs

Thank you, Gregg, for putting together this clear statement. I have only a few comments, so I've snipped out the bulk of the text.

ISSUES AND CONSTRAINTS

<<SNIP>>

4. GUIDELINES MUST BE FLEXIBLE ­ At the same time that the guidelines must be explicit, they must also be flexible, in order for their application across an extremely wide range of products. They must also allow for innovation, miniaturization, and new interfaces.

4.5. GUIDELINES MUST ADDRESS A LARGE NUMBER OF PRODUCTS ­ Beyond the range of products, the number of products to which these guidelines will apply is probably unprecedentedly large: all telephones (wireline and wireless), all computers used for telecommunications (essentially all computers), all video services devices (all televisions and their successors), answering machines, etc. Application of the guidelines must not be burdensome by sheer volume.

<<SNIP>>

8. HARDWARE/SOFTWARE DEVICE OR SERVICE ­ If you buy a cellular phone, and the phone has an answering machine built into it (as some today do), is the answering machine function in your phone a device or a service provided by the device in your hand?

If you buy the next version of the cellular phone, and rather than storing the messages in the phone itself it stored by your cellular provider, so that when you ask your phone if it has any messages it quickly checks the network rather than its own memory to determine whether you have messages, is that a service or part of the hardware? To the user, it may not be possible to tell. Does how it is implemented affect whether it needs to be accessible?

What if, when you bought the phone, it was advertised as having a message capability? Since it operated the same way as the other phone, there is no way for a customer whether those messages were actually stored in the phone or on the network. (In some cases, the messages may actually be stored at different locations at different times. For example, there are two e­mail
protocols. One of them [Pop] stores the messages on your own computer. The other one stores them on the network [although Pop can store them on your computer or on the network, depending on how it's configured]. Is the storage of these messages a service, or a function of the hardware? Is this function a piece of software or a piece of hardware? What if the device
you're sold is sold as a device for sending and receiving e­mail?)

9. CPE VERSUS TELECOMMUNICATION HARDWARE VERSUS SERVICE PROVIDER EQUIPMENT
> ­ In the scenarios above, where is the "device" that the person is using?
> Which category is it in, when it in fact involves a piece of all three?
>
> If the activity that the person carries out involves all three, and cannot
> be carried out without all three, whose responsibility is it if the system
> is not accessible, if it could be made so by any of the three? (Presumably,
> if it could be clearly shown that each had a role, each would be responsible
> for that role. What if it could be done in multiple places?)

...Keeping in mind that the market will continue to provide multiple
technical scenarios for all these services, just as it does now for
telephone answering: you can buy a machine (CPE), or you can subscribe
to network­based voice mail, or have any combinations you wish. This overlap
of technical capabilities provides for a more robust product environment
than the route of seeking a single, perfect product. An important
point ­ and possibly a goal for the guidelines ­ is to encourage this market
diversity and customer choice while still clarifying the access responsibilities.

<<SNIP>>

> THE PROPOSED APPROACH TO TELECOMMUNICATION ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES

<<SNIP>>

> ­ 1. GENERAL ACCESSIBILITY GUIDELINES AND GOALS ­ The general guidelines and
> goals act as a target which the design of products should strive toward.
> These goals cannot be met for all products at this time, simply because
> either the technologies don't exist or we haven't yet discovered how to make
> all technologies accessible to and usable by all people. However, these
> guidelines and goals act as overall guiding principles for the process.

So these are "informational"?

>
> ­ 2. BREAKDOWN OF THE GOALS BY FUNCTION ­ The breakdown of goals by function
> is done to help identify which aspects of an overall accessible system
> should be carried out at which level within the system. For example, what
> does the creator or provider of information need to keep in mind? What are
> the issues involved with the pipeline or transmission service components?
> If there are in­line services (things done to the information between the
> source and its destination), what must be kept in mind? What are the issues
> for the people designing the viewer/controller?
>

I would break these down further, because the companies may be distinct
and the reasonable expectations on the functions are different. Using current
video services as a model:

Producer: creates the content (studio)
Provider: offers the content to the public (cable company)
In­line service: modifies the content on its way to the consumer (real­time
captioning service)
Carrier: transmits the content without modification (cable company)
Displayer: presents the content to the consumer (cable box + TV)
Controller: allows consumer to navigate through content (remote)

> ­ 3. SIMPLE TESTS OF SUFFICIENCY (AT SYSTEM AND COMPONENT LEVEL) ­ The
> simple test conditions are necessary in order to allow manufacturers to test
> new ideas. The general guidelines and goals will by necessity be vague or
> global in nature. If a manufacturer has a new way of addressing an
> accessibility issue that they would like to bring to the market, how can
> they test their idea in a secure and secret way prior to its being released
> on the open market? These tests must be sufficiently objective that they
> can be carried out by independent certified testing laboratories.

Although it may be beyond the jurisdiction of TAAC, I'm not sure that
some mechanism for subjective testing is not necessary. Obviously many
companies will do this anyway, but if there is some way to require consumer
involvement in early trials, I'm all for it.

> ­ 4. EXAMPLES OF COMMERCIAL PRODUCTS THAT DEMONSTRATE "READILY ACHIEVABLE,"
> EFFECTIVE/SUFFICIENT AND ACCEPTABLE STRATEGIES­
>
> Examples of commercial products that demonstrate that there are "readily
> achievable," effective/sufficient and acceptable strategies is the key point
> in this system. Basically, the law states that telecommunication products
> must be accessible to people with disabilities if it is readily achievable.
> This poses a significant problem for industry. How do they determine when
> something is "readily achievable" and they must incorporate it? Also, how
> do they determine when something which is readily achievable is in fact
> effective and acceptable to the disability community (such that implementing
> the technique will not be deemed insufficient and land them a court of law
> anyway).
>
> This component of the proposed approach consists of a registry of strategies
> which have been deemed to be readily achievable through one of two means:
>
> 1. Through their incorporation in standard commercial
> products, or

What is a "standard commercial product" and who determines them? It may be
that the "special panel" [below] is the only possible mechanism.

>
> 2. Through a special panel including members of industry
> who have established that the technique is readily
> achievable. (This second form is to be used only
> rarely, and exists mostly as a safety net to prevent
> any controlled industry from never introducing a
> technique and therefore it never becoming "readily
> achievable" according to Item 1 above.)
>
> Once a product is introduced commercially which incorporates disability
> access features, it would be looked at by the disability / accessibility
> committee, and the techniques that were used would be established as good or
> adequate ways of providing access of a certain type or to certain groups of
> individuals. It would be determined whether the technique in question was
> good enough or sufficient to be used instead of any other techniques that
> might be in the registry. It would also be looked at to see whether this
> approach was so much better than some other approach in the registry that
> the other approach should be removed. For example, if a new technique was
> brought out which was inexpensive or had no costs involved in its
> implementation and was as generally applicable or more generally applicable
> than some other technique that was not nearly as inexpensive, then the
> second technique might be removed.

It should not have to be removed if the registry is only a list of technical
options and not a design mandate; companies will probably select the least
expensive effective technique. Any given approach may not be the least expensive
for any given platform. Perhaps the registry should try to rank approaches by
effectiveness rather than by cost.

>
> Once a technique was in the registry as an example of something that was
> readily achievable and a good and sufficient mechanism, other companies
> would be expected to incorporate such readily achievable approaches in their
> comparable products within an appropriate period of time. The two key
> phrases in this sentence are COMPARABLE and APPROPRIATE.
>
> By "comparable," we mean that the product would be a product of the same
> general price range, size, etc. For example, if a company built a
> capability into a $1,200 cellular phone, that might not be considered an
> example of something that would be readily achievable for someone trying to
> build a $200 cellular phone. Similarly, if someone who built a feature into
> a cellular phone the size of a couple of decks of cards, it would not
> necessarily be considered a precedent for someone trying to build a cellular
> phone into a wrist watch. Since everything occurs along gradients, there
> will of course always be some room for argument about whether a technique
> used on a larger device could effectively be implemented on a smaller
> device, a cheaper device, a device with a different feature set, etc.
> However, even if we restricted the interpretation to devices which were
> almost identical, the progress made would be very great (see "Forcing
> Factor," below).

Certainly the products must be comparable, but I'm not sure that price
and size are the best criteria. If a more expensive product just happens to
perform a larger number of functions (as you described above with respect
to "convergence"), it still needs to be compared with its cousins on a
per­function basis. This is pretty hard to do, I guess: cellular phone A
compared to the function­cost of "cellular phone" in multi­function device B.

With respect to size, it's not clear that feature count maps to size in
any consistent way. Certainly the cell phone with an "answering machine"
feature is not appreciably larger than one without.

>
> The other key phrase was an "appropriate period of time." This is something
> that we can put up for debate. Perhaps it's a year, perhaps it's two years.
> It might depend on the typical product cycle.

Product cycle is the right one to use. There might need to be a short­term
solution requiring additional hardware or other adjustments and a longer­term
solution built in. If version 1.0 is inaccessible, the manufacturer (or
whoever has the burden) must provide a "patch". Version 2.0 is already on
the way to the factory, too late to fix: another patch. The manufacturer
is committed to building in access for version 3.0, scheduled for 18 months
from now. Does this scenario work?

Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
tobias@inclusive.com
908.441.0831 v/tty
908.441.0832 fax