Requirements for the Interconnection of Assistive Technology Devices and Information and Communication Technology Systems
John Gill
July 2001
Contents
Appendix 2 Relevant Assistive Devices in ISO 9999
Appendix 3 The Wireless Interconnection Technologies
Appendix 5 Responses to the Questionnaire
Appendix 6 Alternate User Interface Standard
Responses to the Questionnaire
The responses are listed in the chronological order in which they were received. They have been reproduced without corrections to the grammar or spelling.
Hello John,
I've been chosen to reply to you on this.
1. Firstly, I would point out that there are three sorts of devices - from three types of organisations
a) Those that have been designed as Assistive eg Maltron, IntelliKeys, BigKeys LX, Penny&Giles
b) Those that have had assistiveness 'thrust on them'. eg Kidsball, Pctrak, Mini keyboard.
c) Those that are adaptations - eg Kidsglove, Ability-Switch connections for various mice.
2) I agree it would be helpful if there were standard interfaces, but each of the above is different - very different strategic agenda, and differing financial constraints.
a) can adapt quickly - if it's cheap, eg exchanging PS/2 keyboard interface for AT, but not if it's expensive eg blue tooth. Some are very slow to respond to any change. (Eg the Maltron has been around in its present form for 15 + years)
b) Will adapt, in order to meet their main perceived market - if that loses the whole assistive value (as in the recent Kensington Expert Mouse changes) then tough. The assistive part of their market is sometimes not valued or even recognised. Often tooling costs will prevent a change (eg the Kidsball which remains serial only).
c) The adapters will cope with almost anything, since they are often hand-built. However care is needed. For example, most mice can simply be ability-switch adapted, because there is a physical micro-switch inside the unit, and a handyman can parallel-up such a switch, and drill a hole for the cable connector. However, you can't easily do that with chip-driven devices, such as the Cirque Glidepoint. As for hacking into infra-red, or blue-tooth! I know neither are rocket-science, but this would cut out 95% of the Remap-type engineering assistance.
3) Though USB has been around for - 4 years ? - and Keytools has plenty of interfacing available, I doubt if we've actually supplied more than 20, out of a possible 10,000 units shipped in that period. I think IR and BT will be very slow to reach significant levels.
4) I realise I'm sounding dismissive. I don't intend to be and so my suggestions are:
a) That manufacturers are reminded of their obligations to be helpful to those with disabilities in the first place, (and that there are commercial opportunities too!)
b) That black-box interfaces are encouraged, so that legacy equipment can be used (eg serial to USB converter mice port). Many useful assistive devices are stuck in a time warp, and will be for some time. 486 machines still offer value in some situations.
c) Related to this, manufacturers should be encouraged to make a simple real-world interface and place this in the public domain. An example is the mobile phone. Unless your hands are dextrous, your eyesight good and hearing acute, you're struggling. If a specialised supplier such as ourselves wanted to assist with, say a larger plug-in keyboard, we can't get into the device. It would be relatively simple - and free - to supply a real-word interface that would allow such third-party devices to be made available - if there were a will to do so in the first place. So mainstream suppliers don't just guess what might be useful, but should be encouraged to employ organisations such as yours and mine to advise on real products that would really help.
d) A key issue that we hit time and time again (10 years and still going strong) is that every gadget, keyboard, and software package needs an able-bodied person hovering in the wings to help. In the simplest case, which we have actively promoted all this time, the assistive gadget plugs in (Plug-in-and-go) no software is needed. Then all it requires is dexterity (to aim the plug) and eye-sight (to see the socket). Even mum (!) can manage that.
When we reach the dizzy heights of software loaders form CD-ROM, fiddling with the control panel settings, downloading new drivers from the internet, then more sophisticated helpers are needed. (And are just not available from social services yet!) If blue-tooth were truly able to deliver total automation - no external help needed then great.
e) I actually think the answer is blue-tooth. The others are just staging-posts. However, we could wait 5 years for BT to be of any significance, 10 for it to be as significant as even serial connection is today, and 15 for it to be the dominant issue for assistive technology.
f) Then we can dream the fine dream. Picture a robot dog - Bluey. Its owner is mostly blind, but lives alone and is fiercely independent. Once set-up, Bluey will respond to only to its owner's voice, and retrieve messages to relay to its master. It re-programs itself from the internet. It will communicate (blue-tooth) with the cooker to tell the owner that the pan is boiling; with the front door, to let someone in (via their blue-tooth security card); with e-mail to retrieve and speak messages to the owner, to say that the freezer has stooped working, that it's got three quotes for the repair, and should it select the cheapest, and that the central heating is now due for a regular maintenance, and the man can come next week. The woman in the apartment next door has a blue-tooth cat. She is wheel-chair bound, not blind, and her cat includes a mouse (!) and keypad. It allows full computer access, as well as remote control to all functions of the house. Next door but two, the disabled 8-year old girl has fluffy bear...........................
John, I could go on, but wonder whether you need or want any of this - let me know.
Best Regards
Tim Roberts
Keytools Ltd, PO Box 700, Southampton SO17 1LQ
Tel: 023 8058 4314 Fax: 023 8058 4320
www.keytools.com
tim@keytools.com
Hello John,
I hope that all is well with you! In response to your e-mail Yes!
1. In your opinion, would it be useful for there to be standard interfaces between assistive devices and ICT systems? YES.
2. What features should be covered by such a standard? Communication ports to data storage, ie. hand held devises being lost and having a storage back-up
3. Should the standard protocols be independent of the transmission system (eg infra-red, Bluetooth, hard wire connection)? Hard wire is still more reliable when you are not able to see, but connecting devices should be small, Flat Type RS232 conection would be more than capable.
4. What other aspects should be considered when preparing this standard? Interface problems between devices.
Hope this helps
Regards
Norman Lilly
The Force Ten Co. Ltd.
183 Boundary Road, Woking,
Surrey, GU21 5BU UK
T: 44 (0)1483 762711 F 44 (0)1483 756303
www.forcetenco.co.uk
sales@forcetenco.co.uk
Reg No 3640834
Reg Office: 63 Cobham Rd. Fetcham, Surrey, KT22 9HT
Hello Dr. Gill,
There are a couple of forums where your questions could be best directed.
The ATIA - the Assistive Technology Industry Association.
textHELP Systems is a corporate member of this organization.
Firstly I should point out that all of our users are keyboard and mouse people, so am not the best person to answer your questions.
I personally only deal with speech input and output, but previously I have been involved in switch based interfaces, for which there is a standard. (Don Johnston) Additionally Microsoft have proposed a widely accepted standard for Speech integration which covers both Command and Dictation interfaces. the Speech Application Programmers Interface ( or SAPI - see www.microsoft.com/speech)
Additionally there is a standard called "SerialKeys" for Windows which emulates the windows keyboard using a serial cable which can be connected to any AT input device. The windows interface design guidelines insist that all software must be fully accessible by the use of keyboard alone, hence the SerialKeys interface should be able to control all "windows compatible" software.
There are no standards that I am aware of in use on UNIX / LINUX etc, but my experience of these OS''s is limited.
I would suggest that you contact each of the people listed at www.atia.org/directors.html - apart from Mark McCusker, our CEO.
They will each have technical people who work with alternative interfaces and assistive technology much more intensively than we would - particularly Intellitools.
Best Wishes,
Martin McKay
Technical Director - textHELP Systems
>--------- snipped from www.atia.org ----------------------<
The Assistive Technology Industry Association ("ATIA") is a not-for-profit membership organization of organizations manufacturing or selling technology-based assistive devices for people with disabilities, or providing services associated with or required by people with disabilities. Among its primary goals was the establishment and continuation of an assistive device technology conference to be held on the East Coast of the United States, initially in 1999 and thereafter on an annual basis. Previous ATIA Conferences were successfully held in October 1999 and January 2001 in Orlando Florida. The next ATIA Conference will take place on January 16 to 19, 2002, also in Orlando.
The purpose of such a conference is generally to provide a forum for education and communication to professional practitioners serving those with disabilities (teachers, occupational therapists, rehabilitation counselors, physicians, psychologists, speech-language pathologists, etc.), with the overarching goal of providing enhanced benefits and opportunities to people with disabilities.
John,
My opinion is such that I agree with the standardization of such assistive
devices. As technology grows, such interfacing is a natural progression.
If someone hadn't had the forethought to create database compliancy
(ODBC), database conversion would be a mess! We are a company
who prides ourselves as being on the cutting edge of technology.
Newlife Technologies would comply and support a standardized interfacing
and transmission system. In my opinion, Bluetooth technology would
be the way to go. Because it provides secure and fast transmission
of both voice and data across various devices. Plus, various software
programming can provide built-in, universal tools for monitoring, configuring
and managing device connectivity. However, that's just one opinion.
I hope that through your e-mailing, surveying, and field testing of
various transmission systems you find the best course of action.
The key is functionality, as well as, universality.
Thank you for including us in this process.
Kind Regards,
Dawn Cross
Standardization would be an optimal idea! Can we get these different
tech companies to agree to such a thing?
J Kronheim
Hello John. I've added comments to your questions below.
1. In your opinion, would it be useful for there to be standard interfaces between assistive devices and ICT systems? JAG comment: It could be useful if well-designed and flexible enough for future expansion. If implemented with no thought to the future, a standard could come to be more of a burden than a help.
2. What features should be covered by such a standard? JAG comment: I believe this question deserves careful thought. Most people, certainly including me, could give a list of only a few features that are , in the end, critical. I would certainly want information to be exchanged in a markup language. I would guess that 99% of information one would wish to exchange with a household appliance or an ATM machine could be done in a subset of XHTML. However, this subset would be inadequate for many kiosks that need to pass on a map. We don't know today how to display a map easily to a blind person, but we sure would like to. And someday we will know, so we should not create a standard that locks in today's technology.
3. Should the standard protocols be independent of the transmission system (eg infra-red, Bluetooth, hard wire connection)? JAG comment: This is beyond my expertise. I know of no good reason for an interface protocol to depend on the transmission method, but I just don't know.
4. What other aspects should be considered when preparing this standard? JAG comment: This is not an easy thing to do. It needs to be good enough for today's needs, expandable for the future, and it needs the support of industry if it is really to be accomplished.
John Gardner, President and CEO
ViewPlus Technologies, Inc.
800 NW Starker Avenue
Corvallis, OR 97330
Tel: (541) 754 4002
Fax: (541) 738 6505
e-mail: Gardner@ViewPlusTech.com
URL: WWW.ViewPlusTech.com
1. In your opinion, would it be useful for there to be standard interfaces
between assistive devices and ICT systems? Limited usefulness because
only hardware interfaces can be standardized - with hardware manufacturers
2. What features should be covered by such a standard? Braille input, speech input - as alternatives to keyboard & mouse. Braille output, speech output, tablet with tactile output
3. Should the standard protocols be independent of the transmission system (eg infra-red, Bluetooth, hard wire connection)? YES
4. What other aspects should be considered when preparing this standard? Software variations such as PC vs Macintosh OS, different versions of OS, different versions of web browsers, need for and problems with constant software upgrading, - also, on-site services to users for installing upgrades, configuring them and training the users.
Caring People
1. In your opinion, would it be useful for there to be standard interfaces between assistive devices and ICT systems? Most definitely. For example, had this been available with Windows from the start, many past and existing problems could have been easily avoided.
2. What features should be covered by such a standard? User interface input and output.
3. Should the standard protocols be independent of the transmission system (eg infra-red, Bluetooth, hard wire connection)? Definitely not. The interface standard needs to exist in the input/output data domain, not in the domain that is used for the data transmission.
4. What other aspects should be considered when preparing this standard? Simplicity!
We would be delighted to participate in defining such standard.
Best regards,
Milan Hudecek
Managing Director
Robotron Group
15 Stamford Rd, Oakleigh 3166, Australia
Tel: +61 3 9568 2568, Fax: +61 3 9568 1377
Email: info@robogroup.com
Web: www.robogroup.com
Unless it is the intention to restrict the revolutionary innovations
in technology that are looming on the horizon it is impossible to form
any sort of standardisation in ICT products.
Instead of contacting the designers and producers of current technology like ourselves, and asking them if this is the way forward wouldn't it be better to contact the large national and international commercial companies. It is very likely that you are already aware of the answer.
Technological advances will occur when they are cost effective and no pressure from minority groups will affect this. Our only hope is that information on cutting edge technology could be obtained before new ICT products are released enabling us to find a solution for clients with special needs and allow them to make use of the latest technology at the time of its release.
God Luck,
Philip Ward
Managing Director
Concept Systems Group.
Hi, George passed this on to me to answer.
1) Definately. It would simplify things where multiple devices are used no end.
2) Ideally some sort of plug and play type system - ie automatic recognition of devices, and installation of software etc.
3) YES! With a common "look and feel" to these things, even when using different interconnection mechanisms, it should make it less daunting, and thus more attractive to the average user.
4) Plugging things in, installing software etc can be quite worrying to beginners, especially those who are disabled. I think the overall aim should be to ensure ease of use to the end user, even if that makes it more complicated at the developers end.
Nick Brown,
Team Leader, Technical Support,
RNC, Hereford.
Hello John,
You ask
1. In your opinion, would it be useful for there to be standard interfaces between assistive devices and ICT systems? Non-official reply: I personally hypothesize that the issue will partially solve itself through increased networking among devices (Bluetooth etc.), which will imply an effective standardization of user controls for technical compatibility reasons even without accessibility (for the blind) considerations. As soon as one can operate the fridge/VCR/whatever over the Internet for multiple vendors, there must be standards under the hood that can be tapped and controlled via the regular assistive technology, such as screen readers on a PC. In that sense one must perhaps be careful about pursuing standards that could soon become obsolete when/if the above scenario comes true.
Hope this adds something to the discussion and thinking. I know that one can throw in many other considerations, and I'm sure others will.
BTW, I liked your section on camera-based vision substitution in the future research section of "Keeping step? Scientific and technological research for visually impaired people." Gets pretty close to what I have been doing.
Best wishes,
Peter Meijer
Seeing with Sound - The vOICe
www.seeingwithsound.com/winvoice.htm
Hello John.
1. In your opinion, would it be useful for there to be standard interfaces between assistive devices and ICT systems? Yes it would b usefull if accessibility interfaces are standardized.
2. What features should be covered by such a standard? Each ICT system apparently provides different functions and services. But, we should challenge developing the generic accessibility api regardless of ICT type. I'm thinking in mind of some sort of macro or script controls.
3. Should the standard protocols be independent of the transmission system (eg infra-red, Bluetooth, hard wire connection)? Yes they should be independent.
Regards
Jun Ishikawa (Dr.)
Professor of Sociology
The University of Shizuoka
Faculty of International Relations
Voice and Fax: +81 54-264-5325
fuji.u-shizuoka-ken.ac.jp/~ishikawa/index.html
(Japanese)
fuji.u-shizuoka-ken.ac.jp/~ishikawa/vitae.htm
(English)
ICQ UIN 85915929
Hello,
1. In your opinion, would it be useful for there to be standard interfaces between assistive devices and ICT systems? Yes, typically this can be accomplished by using a commercial, industry standard operating sstem that enables a disabled individual to interact with the assistive technology so that the results of their efforts might be compatible with those of their non-disabled counterparts.
2. What features should be covered by such a standard? Such a standard should be flexible and allow for the ability for a given product to create a comfortable, intuitive, and powerful environment for the individual to produce results and to progress through their day to day tasks by using the product. Different disabilities call for customized environments to enhance productivity.
3. Should the standard protocols be independent of the transmission system (eg infra-red, Bluetooth, hard wire connection)? No, tying into such technology will allow for compatibility with more inaccessible products.
4. What other aspects should be considered when preparing this standard? The most important aspect would be:
A. What developments could effect the greatest amount of enhancements for the greatest number of groups of disabled persons.
B. This technology will always be accompanied with a certain amount of hand-holding and support. Typically, a distribution network accojmplishes this goal.
With Regards,
Larry L. Lewis, Jr.,
Blindness Products Manager,
HumanWare Inc.
Phone: 216/381/8106, 800/722/3393, Extension 423
Fax: 216/381/8107
E-mail: Lewis@HumanWare.com
www.humanware.com
FTP: ftp.humanware.com/humanware
John,
Trace Research Center has established standard communications protocols for assistive devices to "talk" to and control other devices. This is the URCC (Universal Remote Console Communication) protocol originally meant for the remote control of electronic devices and home appliances (e.g., microwaves, televisions, stereos, thermostat). However, it was also designed for use with telephones.
There is also the AIAP (Alternative Interface Access Protocol) that is being developed for IR/Bluetooth/hard-wired connections to ICTs.
You can find most of this information at the Trace website: trace.wisc.edu/world/irstds.html
As to your specific questions:
1. In your opinion, would it be useful for there to be standard interfaces between assistive devices and ICT systems? Yes, direct serial connection, IRDA and/or bluetooth being the leading contenders for the actual communications hardware protocols.
2. What features should be covered by such a standard? Available features should be selectable and flexible according to the possible current and future uses of the particular ICT. To handle this, a query communications protocol should be established whereby the assistive device can query the ICT to find out what features it has, and determine by priority the type of features most likely to be used by the user. The assistive device can then present these to the user as selectable options. For instance, if the device is a cell phone, then the top priority option would probably be to make a call (dial a number), and second might be to answer a call.
To accomplish this, the ICT must provide the assistive device with its full list of functions along with codes that the assistive device should send to the ICT to activate each function, and the tree structure involved in selecting a particular function. A full list of error codes should also be provided with their meaning spelled out in enough detail that the user can understand why the device did not respond as expected, and how the user/assitive device should respond to correct the situation.
3. Should the standard protocols be independent of the transmission system (eg infra-red, Bluetooth, hard wire connection)? Yes, the actual hardware protocols should be completely independent of the actual data being sent between the assistive dcevice and the ICT. However, this communications hardware/software should provide adequate error information to the ICT and Assistive Device that the user can figure out what is happening should communications break down.
4. What other aspects should be considered when preparing this standard? The ICT, when being used via a remote assistive device, should expect delays in response, and not automatically shut-down or leave a selected option if it takes a long time for the person to respond. If, after some time, nothing is received after a function such as "Make a Call" has been selected, then the ICT should "ping" the assistive device to make sure it's still there, and request an update. If the assistive device responds with the same selection and a "wait" code, then the ICT should continue waiting for the phone number for another extended period of time.
Also, especially if you are using Bluetooth, you will want to consider privacy issues and encryption of the communications between the assistive device and the ICT.
I'm sure there are more things, like the above, to consider when establishing this protocol, but they do not come to mind at the moment. The existing documents on the Trace website should be very helpful, as they have already considered many of these things.
Thanks for asking,
David
David A. Ross, Biomedical Research Engineer
Atlanta VA Rehab R&D Center
1670 Clairmont Rd., Mail Stop 151R
Decatur, GA 30033
(404) 321-6111 x6817
davidross1@mindspring.com
Hello John - thanks for asking. Please see my responses below.
1. In your opinion, would it be useful for there to be standard interfaces between assistive devices and ICT systems? Absolutely.
2. What features should be covered by such a standard? All types of human-machine interface. However the ICT equipment is intended to be controlled by an able-bodied person (ie. touch, keypad, etc) should also be controllable by another computer (via infrared, RF, and/or hard wire). There should also be a mechanism for the ICT to transmit what its user interface looks like (I am an elevator with 16 floors and my buttons look like this...").
3. Should the standard protocols be independent of the transmission system (eg infra-red, Bluetooth, hard wire connection)? Yes, if possible. This not only provides flexibility, but also redundancy. (If the RF environment is too noisy to work reliably, I know I can always pull up the ICT and use my infrared port instead).
4. What other aspects should be considered when preparing this standard? I believe the need for two-way communication of the user interface with the device is essential. The designers of the ICT will know best how it should be presented on the screen of a PDA, described audibly, etc. The protocol should account for some sort of hand shaking between the ICT and AT equipment like this:
ICT: "I'm here"
AT: "OK. What do you do, and what does your user interface look like"
ICT: "I am an ATM machine, here's a list of the commands that I accept, and here's the graphics and audio files of my user interface"
AT: "The user has initiated this command..."
Randy Marsden
1. In your opinion, would it be useful for there to be standard interfaces
between assistive devices and ICT systems? Absolutely
2. What features should be covered by such a standard? I don't understand the question
3. Should the standard protocols be independent of the transmission system (eg infra-red, Bluetooth, hard wire connection)? independent - folks in the two categories you noted are likely to be poor and to have access to low quality and obsolete equipment...
4. What other aspects should be considered when preparing this standard? Usability by individuals with other print impairments, such as persons with specific learning disabilities
Best wishes
Catherine
Catherine S. Fichten, Ph.D.
Psychology Department
Dawson College
3040 Sherbrooke St. West
Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3Z 1A4
514-931-8731 #1546 (Tel:)
514-340-7507 (Fax:)
catherine.fichten@mcgill.ca
(e-mail)
John,
I would think that such devices would encompass both hearing as well as visual impairment. From a technical standpoint, most visually impaired individuals as you know would like to access mainstream technologies such as Windows and Mac platforms and related software. Certainly Bluetooth is a beneficial integrated technology which will eventually allow technology for the visually impaired. IT would seem plausable that an international standard would be developed by a technical comittee looking at present and future capabilities. Developing a seperate technical standard requiring extensive testing may causea delay in interconnectivity. Rather, modification of existing technologies would allow interconnectivity now and in the futrue as newer applications are developed.
I'm sure your going to get some very interesting perspectives on this.
Rex Ballinger
The problem is twofold:
On one hand there are so many different types of assistive devices. with so many different features, that would be almost impossible to create some comprehensive standard. Moreover, standards have proved to work when are adopted by groups of strong industrial players, and in the case of assistive devices we have a very fragmented market of small enterprises that strive to maintain their differences.
On the other hand, most assistive devices for ICT are substitute for typical I/O devices (e.g. mouses, keyboards, screens, sound outputs). The best solution in this case could be to have the possibility to plug these kind of assistive devices as their typical counterparts. Industrial standards already exist for these kind of devices, and I think that it is just a matter of pushing the producers to adopt them. Non ICT assistive devices (e.g. smart house components) should follow the same pattern trying to use the relevant standards in their application field.
In conclusion, I feel that proposing new standard for assistive can be an expensive exercise with little possibility of some usefulness.
My feeling is that energies could be better used to push some legislation action aimed at universal service obligation and incouraging industries to invest toward usable products.
Kind regards
Marco Mercinelli
1. In your opinion, would it be useful for there to be standard interfaces
between assistive devices and ICT systems? Yes, we need standardization.
More to the point, we need leaders willing to lobby for the standardization
and follow through with the implementation.
2. What features should be covered by such a standard? I am over my head here. The problem in the area of blind navigation systems is that the technologies are all so different, the question of interface would vary widely. GPS interfaces would be different from robotic or sonification units, etc.
3. Should the standard protocols be independent of the transmission system (eg infra-red, Bluetooth, hard wire connection)? I have no idea. Some of the inventors might be able to address this.
4. What other aspects should be considered when preparing this standard? Again, over my head, but the inventors list might help. They can also point you to other lists with sophisticated consumers.
Let me know if I can sign you on to the inventors list. You would be an excellent addition to a remarkable collection of great minds.
Doug
Doug Baldwin, Director
Institute for Innovative Blind Navigation
Saginaw, Michigan USA
1) I don't think the solution is to have a separate "standard" interface
between assistive devices and ICT systems. Clients in a small marketplace
who already pay too much and complain like hell should not have to purchase
a separate interface. Rather the solution would be for the major computer
companies to come up with a standard of their own that we can tap into
and the stick with that standard longer than a fortnight.
2) From a physically disabled standpoint we only need easy access to keyboard and mouse connections and protocols.
3) Yes.
4) There is no such thing as a typical disability in the pysically disabled marketplace as compared to the visual and blindness fields.
Hope this helps.
Colin Wheeler
President
Tash International Inc.
1. In your opinion, would it be useful for there to be standard interfaces
between assistive devices and ICT systems?
Yes standardisation of interfaces would be useful as long as the standardisation process recognises the principles of universal design in its development. An inaccessible interface would be a disaster if it is applied across all systems. However since individual manufacturers are interested in developing their own unique market niches it is unlikely that they will be prepared to change to one interface. A comparison can be made to the building industry that has since the 1950's tried to standardise its processes with little success. The only system in the building industry that comes close is an "open " system called CLASP and was devised by Nottingham local authorities and even that has become less open and more "closed". The difference between an open system and a closed system is that an open system defines the criteria for anything to work within the system - in the case of buildings that is dimensions and tolerances of materials and elements of the building. Providing you element complies with the open system then it will work with any other element built to the open system. However a closed system is one generally developed by one manufacturer and allows their particular elements to work with each other. Little thought is given to how any elements from outside the individual manufacturer's system might integrate. Writing open systems is difficult in order to allow as many manufacturers to fit into it.
2. What features should be covered by such a standard?
Should comply with the principles of universal design. Needs to be forward looking rather than just addressing current problems. It should be written in a manner that allows all manufacturers to integrate into it rather than having to change to the dominant market leaders peculiarities.
3. Should the standard protocols be independent of the transmission system (eg infra-red, Bluetooth, hard wire connection)?
Yes the protocols should be robust enough to cover a variety of transmission systems and should not be created to only work with new systems. A lot of people will no be able to buy new equipment and will want their existing gear to continue to be viable.
4. What other aspects should be considered when preparing this standard?
Is this standard going to be specific to one country or a global? How will it work with products being produced from diverse parts of the world but being used in other countries?
Adrian Higginbotham.
SURFACE (Salford University, Research Focus on Accessible Environments).
Tel: (44_-161-2953949,
Fax: (44)-161-2955011,
Email: A.higginbotham@salford.ac.uk
textphone (44)-161-2953599.
web: www.scpm.salford.ac.uk/surface/
These are important issues that our technical assistance center would
like to facititate. I have been talking to Arjan Khalsa about organizing
a working group in the Assistive Technology Industry Association to
address issue like this. I.m out of town until tomorrow. I will get
some more details and get back with you.
John Goldthwaite
Center for Rehabilitation Technology
490 Tenth Street
Atlanta GA 30332-0156
404 894-0563i
John.Goldthwaite@arch.gatech.edu
1. In your opinion, would it be useful for there to be standard interfaces
between assistive devices and ICT systems? Yes, at least in the complex
and expensive cases. Not for simple deveices.
2. What features should be covered by such a standard? Physical and electrical plug and some basis of protocols
3. Should the standard protocols be independent of the transmission system (eg infra-red, Bluetooth, hard wire connection)? Yes.
4. What other aspects should be considered when preparing this standard? The simplicity of use for not expert people.
Regards
Dr Ramón Ceres
Dr. Gill
Your Email: has been passed to me by our information department, I am the IT Manager for Mencap; at present we do not have any resources looking into the area of assistive devices to complement standard computer technology although it is likely that we will be researching this later this year.
I can therefore only give you my personal views rather than a Mencap response.
1. Yes there should be standard interfaces between the devices and ICT systems; this would help in standardising setting up procedures and also keep the cost of providing and installing these devices down. If at all possible they should use existing interface protocols.
2. The standards should cover operation of the devices.
3. It would be better if the protocols were independent of the transmission system in use
4. Unable to comment further on this until I have had time to research the area.
Sorry if this is not very helpful, as mentioned there is currently very limited expertise within Mencap on assistive technology; although it is a short coming we have recognised and intend to resolve this year.
Regards
Keith Burgess
Head of IT & Support ServicesThe Royal Society Mencap
1. In your opinion, would it be useful for there to be standard interfaces
between assistive devices and ICT systems? Yes, it would be very helpful.
2. What features should be covered by such a standard? You would need to cover both basic text input as well as environment navigation. To do a good job, you really need to have knowledge of and specialization for the particular ICT you are trying to control.
3. Should the standard protocols be independent of the transmission system (eg infra-red, Bluetooth, hard wire connection)? Of course.
4. What other aspects should be considered when preparing this standard? Extreme extensibility.
Bob Cunningham
bob@dynavoxsys.com
Vice President of R&D
DynaVox Systems LLC