AVIXA Releases New Image System Contrast Ratio Standard

AVIXA Banner Logo

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

PRESS CONTACT:

Krystle Murphy, Communications Manager, AVIXA

Email: [email protected]

Phone: +1.703.279.6366

AVIXA Releases New Image System Contrast Ratio Standard

Discover How Applying This Standard Takes AV Systems to their Peak Performance in Oct. 12 Webinar

FAIRFAX, VA – Sept. 22, 2022 – AVIXA, the Audiovisual and Integrated Experience Association, is pleased to announce the release of its standard Image System Contrast Ratio (ISCR). This standard defines acceptable minimum contrast ratios for AV presentation systems relative to their stated purpose or application.

“Presentation technology has fundamentally changed since the original PISCR (Projected Image System Contrast Ratio) standard was released,” said Jonathan Brawn, CTS, Principal, Brawn Consulting, and co-chair of this standard’s task group. “Previously, while direct-view displays were a strong part of the industry, projection-based display technology still influenced the majority of large format installations at that time. Today, direct-view technologies like very large format LCD, LCD videowalls, and increasingly, DVLED have not only maintained being mainstream but are now the dominant technology in most instances. This drove a true need to update the original PISCR standard to reflect current technology.”

This standard replaces the PISCR standard published in 2011, which applied to projection only. As direct-view displays became more prevalent, AVIXA assembled a task group to assess the technological characteristics of direct-view displays to determine whether the differences in technologies would affect how image system contrast was assessed.

The task group concluded that the measurement used in the original PISCR standard was equally appropriate for direct view displays. However, the addition of sequential (also called full on/off or inter-frame) testing was deemed necessary to accurately characterize the image system’s contrast for any technology. Sequential testing enables AV professionals to effectively measure high-performance display technologies that can create high contrast ratios in a wider range of environments.

The new ISCR standard is designed to facilitate informed decision-making for projector, screen, and direct view display selection relative to location and stated purpose. Additionally, the metrics (the contrast ratios) and classifications (the viewing categories) in this standard may be used to establish design criteria for new systems. Requirements of this standard apply to:

  • Planning and designing image system installations
  • Setting minimum and optimum contrast ratios relative to stated purposes
  • Testing and signing off on completed image system installations
  • Determining remedial solutions for a system not conforming with this standard or inadequate for the stated purpose.

The standard’s four contrast ratios are based on the following content viewing requirements:

  • Passive Viewing
  • Basic Decision Making
  • Analytical Decision Making
  • Full Motion Video

“This standard helps our industry to address our customers’ needs,” Justin Watts, CTS, Senior AV Design Engineer, and co-chair of this standard’s task group. “In new systems, we can deliver a superior experience by providing display solutions that meet or exceed the performance requirements for the core applications we represent. It’s also a powerful tool for existing systems, where we can evaluate their performance and provide sometimes needed justification for updates, upgrades, or changes to environment to maximize investments.”

To learn more, register for the webinar “Leveraging the AVIXA Image System Contrast Ratio (ISCR) Standard” led by Jonathan Brawn and Justin Watts taking place Oct. 12 at 1 p.m. EDT.

Visit www.avixa.org/standards/image-system-contrast-ratio to download the ISCR standard. It is free for AVIXA Premium and Elite.

Video: ISCR Standard: The Four Viewing Categories

Image: Four Viewing Categories

AVIXA is an ANSI-accredited Standards Development Organization (SDO). The work of preparing standards is carried out through AVIXA Task Groups with oversight by the AVIXA Standards Steering Committee and governed by the AVIXA Board of Directors.

About AVIXA
AVIXA is the Audiovisual and Integrated Experience Association, producer of InfoComm trade shows around the world, co-owner of Integrated Systems Europe, and the international trade association representing the audiovisual industry. Established in 1939, AVIXA has more than 20,000 enterprise and individual members, including manufacturers, systems integrators, dealers and distributors, consultants, programmers, live events companies, technology managers, content producers, and multimedia professionals from more than 80 countries. AVIXA members create integrated AV experiences that deliver outcomes for end users. AVIXA is a hub for professional collaboration, information, and community and is the leading resource for AV standards, certification, training, market intelligence, and thought leadership. Visit avixa.org.

More Posts

ADA Kiosk – ANPRM Issued by U.S. Access Board Today

ADA Kiosk

Americans With Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities; Architectural Barriers Act Accessibility Guidelines; Self-Service Transaction Machines and Self-Service Kiosks

As noted on Federal Register September 21, 2022 — contact [email protected] for more information

AGENCY:

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board.

ACTION:

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.

SUMMARY:

The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (“Access Board” or “Board”) is issuing this Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) to begin the process of supplementing its accessibility guidelines for buildings and facilities covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968 to address access to various types of self-service transaction machines (SSTMs), including electronic self-service kiosks, for persons with disabilities. By this ANPRM, the Access Board invites public comment on the planned approach to supplementing its ADA Accessibility Guidelines and ABA Accessibility Guidelines with new scoping and technical provisions for SSTMs and self-service kiosks. The Board will consider comments received in response to this ANPRM in its development of these guidelines for SSTMs and self-service kiosks in future rulemaking.

DATES:

Submit comments by November 21, 2022.

ADDRESSES:

You may submit comments, identified by docket number (ATBCB-2022-0004), by any of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.

• Email:. Include docket number ATBCB-2022-0004 in the subject line of the message.

• Mail: Office of Technical and Information Services, U.S. Access Board, 1331 F Street NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-1111.

Instructions: All submissions must include the docket number (ATBCB-2022-0004) for this regulatory action. All comments received will be posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.

Docket: For access to the docket, to read background documents or public comments received, go to: https://www.regulations.gov/​docket/​ATBCB-2022-0004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Technical information: Bruce Bailey, (202) 272-0024, . Legal information: Wendy Marshall, (202) 272-0043, .

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Legal Authority

The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 charges the Access Board with developing and maintaining minimum guidelines to ensure the accessibility and usability of the built environment in new construction, alterations, and additions. See42 U.S.C. 12101 et seq.; see also29 U.S.C. 792(b)(3)(B) & (b)(10). The Access Board’s ADA Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) address buildings and facilities covered under Title II of the ADA (state and local government facilities) and Title III of the ADA (places of public accommodation and commercial facilities). The ADAAG serves as the basis for legally enforceable accessibility standards issued by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Transportation (DOT), which are the federal entities responsible for implementing and enforcing the ADA’s non-discrimination provisions related to buildings and facilities in new construction, alterations, and additions.

The Access Board has a similar responsibility under the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) of 1968, which requires that buildings and facilities designed, built, or altered with certain federal funds or leased by federal agencies be accessible to people with disabilities. See42 U.S.C. 4151 et seq. The ABA charges the Access Board with developing and maintaining minimum guidelines for covered buildings and facilities. The Board’s ABA Accessibility Guidelines (ABAAG) serve as the basis for enforceable standards issued by four standard-setting agencies: the Department of Defense, the General Services Administration, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Postal Service.

II. Need for Accessibility Guidelines for SSTMs

Kiosks and other types of SSTMs are now a common feature in places of public accommodation, government offices, and other facilities. They allow users to conduct an expanding range of transactions and functions independently. SSTMs serve as point-of-sales machines for self-checkout in a growing number of retail facilities, grocery stores, and drug stores. Self-service kiosks at airports and hotels provide check-in services. Restaurants are providing touchscreens for customers to place orders, and health care providers, including doctors’ offices and hospitals, allow patients to check in at kiosks. SSTMs and self-service kiosks are also found at state and local government facilities, such as motor vehicle departments.

SSTMs and self-service kiosks have long posed accessibility barriers to people with disabilities, particularly those who are blind or have low vision. Robust speech output is necessary to provide access for users unable to see display screens. It is increasingly common for information and communication technology (ICT), including kiosks, to have touchscreens without a physical keypad or other tactile controls. This results in the screen being an obstacle for the user to both receive information, if the information is not provided audibly, and to enter information, as the input “buttons” are the flat touchscreen which have no tactile markers. In addition, SSTMs and self-service kiosks frequently pose barriers for users who are deaf or hard of hearing by failing to provide captioning and text equivalents for audible information.

These devices also must be accessible to people with physical impairments, including those who use wheelchairs and other mobility devices, have limited dexterity, or who are of short stature. Sufficient clear floor space at the device is necessary to accommodate wheeled mobility aids. For usability, controls and keys must be within accessible reach ranges and screens or other displays must be viewable from a seated position. Controls and features must not require delicate motor movements or fine dexterity.

On May 19, 2021, the Access Board conducted a virtual public forum on the accessibility of SSTMs that featured panel presentations by invited speakers. One panel addressed usability issues and barriers that people with sensory, cognitive, physical, or multiple disabilities encounter using kiosks, point-of-sales machines, and other SSTMs. Speakers included representatives from the Blinded Veterans Association, the Coleman Institute for Cognitive Disabilities, the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Consumer Advocacy Network, and the United Spinal Association. They called attention to common access barriers, such as the lack of speech output and tactilely discernable input keys and controls for users who are blind or who have low vision. People who use wheelchairs and scooters encounter display screens that are difficult to see and controls that are out of reach. Further, correction and time-out features can impact usability for persons with cognitive disabilities. ( See “Panel Discussions on Inclusive Interfaces: Accessibility to Self-Service Transaction Machines” available at: https://www.access-board.gov/​news/​2021/​05/​24/​u-s-access-board-conducts-panel-discussions-on-self-service-transaction-machines.)

A second panel discussed efforts by research and industry to improve access to SSTMs. Panelists included representatives from the Kiosk Manufacturer Association (KMA) and the Trace Research and Development Center who addressed the need for accessibility standards for SSTMs, provided an overview of relevant requirements and resources, and discussed strategies for accessibility. They were joined by representatives from software and hardware developer NCR, which has created a Universal Navigator interface for SSTMs, and Vispero, a company that has created a kiosk interface that integrates screen-reading software. Id.

According to the KMA, the lack of accessibility to kiosks is due in large part to the absence of complete and uniform standards. The lack of detailed requirements has led to a common misconception that physical accessibility or an audio jack alone is sufficient. In addition, some states have implemented their own unique requirements for SSTMs, which led to complications in ensuring compliance with varying standards. Some kiosk manufacturers serve global markets, and they have stressed the importance of consistency of U.S. standards with requirements issued by other countries and international organizations. Id.

III. Existing Guidelines

A. The ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines

The Access Board has issued accessibility guidelines for the built environment. The Access Board’s ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines, which were jointly updated in 2004, require only ATMs and fare machines to provide speech output so that displayed information is communicated to users who are blind or who have low vision. The guidelines also address braille instructions, privacy, input controls, display screens, operable parts, and clear floor space. See36 CFR part 119169 FR 44084.

When the Board promulgated the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines in 2004, it noted in the preamble that it had chosen not to broaden the application of the guidelines to address other types of SSTMs such as point-of-sale machines and information kiosks. However, the Board noted that it intended to consider a future update to these guidelines after monitoring the application of accessibility standards it had issued under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act (36 CFR part 1194) in 2000 for information and communication technology (ICT), including electronic kiosks, in the federal sector. See69 FR 4408344455 (July 23, 2004).

In March of 2010, the Board issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) indicating that it was considering a supplemental rulemaking to address in ADAAG access to SSTMs used for ticketing, check-in or check-out, seat selection, boarding passes, or ordering food in restaurants and cafeterias. See Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities; Telecommunications Act Accessibility Guidelines; Electronic and Information Technology Standards, ANPRM, 75 FR 13457 (Mar. 22, 2010). However, the Board later postponed this effort due to rulemaking it was conducting on information and communication technology in the federal sector under the Rehabilitation Act. See Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards, ANPRM, 76 FR 76640 (Dec. 8, 2011).

B. Section 508 Accessibility Standards

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794d (hereafter, “Section 508”) requires access to ICT in the Federal sector. The law applies to ICT developed, procured, maintained, or used by federal agencies, including SSTMs and self-service kiosks, as well as computers, telecommunications equipment, software, websites, and electronic documents. The Board is responsible for issuing accessibility standards for ICT covered by Section 508. The Board published its original Section 508 Standards in 2000 (65 FR 80499) and updated them with the Revised 508 Standards in January 2017 (82 FR 5790). The Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council and federal agencies incorporate these standards into their respective acquisition regulations and procurement policies and directives. See86 FR 44229 (Aug. 11, 2021).

The Revised 508 Standards apply to hardware in the federal sector that transmits information or has a user interface, such as self-service kiosks provided by federal agencies for use by customers in post offices and social security field offices. See36 CFR part 1194, App. A, E206. The Section 508 Standards address biometrics, privacy, operable parts, data connections, display screens, status indicators, color coding, audible signals, two-way voice communication, closed captioning, and audio description. Id. at App. C, Ch. 4.

C. DOT Regulations for Self-Service Kiosks in Airports

In 2013 the Department of Transportation (DOT) supplemented its regulations under the Air Carrier Access Act (ACAA) of 1986, as amended, and the Rehabilitation Act to address access to airport self-service kiosks used for checking in, printing boarding passes, and other passenger services. 78 FR 67882 (Nov. 12, 2013). DOT’s rule applies requirements based on the provisions for ATMs and fare machines in the ADA Standards and provisions for self-contained closed products in the Board’s Original Section 508 Standards. Id. New airport kiosks must meet the DOT standards until at least a quarter of all kiosks at each airport location are accessible. The rule applies to U.S. and foreign air carriers that own, lease, or control automated airport kiosks at U.S. airports with at least 10,000 enplanements a year. Id.

III. Planned Approach to the NPRM and Questions for Public Comment

The Access Board intends to propose supplementary provisions for SSTMs and self-service kiosks in a future rulemaking that are based on both the technical requirements for ATMs and fare machines in the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines (36 CFR part 1191) as well as relevant provisions for hardware in the Revised Section 508 Standards (36 CFR part 1194). In addition, the Board intends to address the types of SSTMs and self-service kiosks to be covered under both the ADA and the ABA and the number or percentage required to comply. The Board invites public comment on this planned approach for this rulemaking generally, and on the specific questions posed below.

Application

The Access Board’s authority under the ADA and ABA to set minimum guidelines for buildings and facilities is limited to those elements that are built-in or that are fixed to buildings and sites. DOJ and other agencies have the authority to regulate moveable furniture and equipment under the ADA or ABA. Thus, the Board’s ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines apply only to ATMs and fare machines that are fixed or built-in, but not to those that are moveable. Similarly, the Board intends that only SSTMs and self-service kiosks that are fixed or built-in will be covered by this supplementary rule.

SSTMs and self-service kiosks are now commonplace in many different types of businesses and establishments and are used to conduct a growing range of transactions and services. One of the most common types of SSTMs that people encounter on a routine basis is self-checkout kiosks in grocery stores, drug stores, and retail chains. SSTMs and self-service kiosks are also being provided in settings where only information is being exchanged, such as unattended checking in for an appointment, checking out of a hotel, or ordering food in a restaurant. Touchscreens and tablets are now being incorporated into many different types of SSTMs and self-service kiosks. For example, some SSTMs and self-service kiosks use touchscreen interfaces for the delivery of goods and services, such as pairing online ordering with pickup from an automated electronic locker at a local retail location. The customer does not interact directly with any employees of the retail store.

Additionally, many vending machines are now essentially SSTMs, offering a wide array of choices via a video display, and utilizing touch-screen input to navigate those choices. The current ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines address physical access to vending machines by requiring at least one of each type to comply with criteria for operable parts, but the guidelines do not address access for users who are blind or who have low vision. 36 CFR part 1191, App. D, 228 and 309.

Question 1. In this rulemaking, the Board intends to cover fixed or built-in electronic devices that are designed for unattended operation by customers ( i.e., “self-service”) to conduct a transaction. It also intends to address fixed or built-in self-service kiosks, including those used to check in, place an order, obtain a product, or retrieve information. Are there capabilities, functions, or other objective criteria that should define the types of devices covered as SSTMs or self-service kiosks?

Question 2. Are there other types of electronic devices providing unattended interaction that should be addressed by this rulemaking? If so, what are they?

Question 3. Are there types of self-service electronic devices that should not be covered by this rulemaking? If so, why not?

Minimum Number

In its rulemaking, the Board intends to address the minimum number of SSTMs and self-service kiosks required to be accessible. Currently, the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines require at least one of each type of ATM or fare machine provided at each location to comply. See 36 CFR part 1191, App. B 220 and App. C F220. This may be insufficient in high traffic locations where many SSTMs or self-service kiosks of the same type are provided such as self-checkout devices in grocery stores and big-box retailers. Further, it can be difficult for users who are blind or who have low vision to locate which self-service devices are accessible, especially in areas where many devices are provided. DOT’s airport kiosk rule requires compliance for all new kiosks until at least 25% of all kiosks at each airport location are accessible. The 508 Standards require that all SSTMs and self-service kiosks be accessible.

Question 4. Should the Board’s rule require all fixed or built-in SSTMs and self-service kiosks in each location to be accessible? If not, why, and what should the number be? Are there some facilities or locations that should have a higher number of accessible devices than others?

Technical Requirements

ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines

The Board intends to apply the technical requirements from the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines for ATMs and fare machines to SSTMs and self-service kiosks. Currently, these Guidelines address clear floor or ground space, operable parts, speech output, input controls, and display screens.

Clear floor or ground space is required so that people with disabilities, including those who use wheeled mobility aids, can approach and position at ATMs or fare machines in a forward or parallel direction. 36 CFR part 1191, App. D 707.2 and 305.5. This clear space generally must be at least 30 inches wide and at least 48 inches deep. Id. at 305.3. Additional space is required for maneuvering where this clear space is obstructed on both sides for more than half the depth. Id. at 305.7.

Operable parts for ATMs and fare machines must be located within accessible reach ranges. Id. at 707.3, 309.3, 308. They must be usable with one hand, and not require tight grasping, pinching, or twisting of the wrist, or more than 5 pounds force to operate. Id. at 707.3, 309.4. Users must be able to differentiate each operable part by sound or touch without activation; touch activation is permitted if a key to clear or correct input is provided. Id. at 707.3.

ATMs and fare machines must provide speech output (recorded or digitized human or synthesized) through a mechanism that is readily available to all users, such as an industry standard connector or telephone handset. Id. at 707.5. The speech function must have volume control and allow users to repeat or interrupt output. Braille instructions for initiating the speech are required Id. at 707.8. ATM speech output must provide an equal degree of privacy. Id. at 707.4.

Additionally, ATM and fare machines must provide tactilely discernible input controls for each function. Id. at 707.6. Numeric keys must be arranged in a 12-key ascending or descending telephone keypad layout, and the number five key shall be tactilely distinct from the other keys. Key surfaces not on active areas of display screens must be raised above surrounding surfaces. Where membrane keys are the only method of input, each shall be tactilely discernable from surrounding surfaces and adjacent keys. Visual contrast (either light-on-dark or dark-on-light) is required between function keys and background surfaces and between function key characters and symbols and key surfaces. Tactile symbols are required for certain function keys including enter or proceed, clear or correct, cancel, add value, and decrease value. Id.

The Guidelines also require that display screens be visible from a point located 40 inches above the center of the clear floor space in front of the machine. Id at 707.7. Display screen characters must have a cap height of at least 3/16 inch, be in a sans serif font, and contrast from the background either light-on-dark or dark-on-light.

Section 508 Standards

The Board is also considering incorporating into the proposed rule certain requirements in the Revised 508 Standards for hardware that transmits information or has a user interface. 36 CFR part 1194, App. C, Ch. 4. In particular, the Board is considering including those requirements that specifically pertain to hardware that by its design does not support a user’s assistive technology other than personal headsets or other audio couplers. Such hardware is referred to as having “closed functionality.” The Revised 508 Standards require hardware with closed functionality to provide speech output for all information displayed on-screen or needed to verify transactions. Id. at 402. Like the requirements in the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines, speech output must be delivered through a mechanism readily available to all users, such as an industry standard headphone jack or telephone handset, and the interface must allow users to repeat or pause output. Other specifications in this section of the 508 Standards which are harmonized with those in the ADA and ABA Guidelines address braille instructions for activating speech and volume control, privacy, operable parts, including input controls, and the visibility of display screens. Id. at 402.2.5, 402.3, 405, 407, and 408. Display screen characters must have a cap height of at least 3/16 inch unless there is a screen enlargement feature, be in a sans serif font, and contrast from the background either light-on-dark or dark-on-light. Id. at 402.4.

The Revised 508 Standards, which are much more recent than the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines, contain additional specifications including provisions that address biometrics, use of color and non-speech audio to convey information, status indicators, and captioning. Id. at 403, 409, 410, 411, and 413. The Revised 508 Standards also provide specifications for volume control for private listening ( e.g., through a headphone jack) and non-private audio ( i.e., speakers) and require tickets and farecards used with kiosks to have an orientation that is tactilely discernable if a particular orientation is needed for use. Id. at 402.3 and 407. Other unique provisions in the Revised 508 Standards address the display screen not blanking automatically when the speech-output mode is activated, alphabetic keys, timed responses, and flashing elements that can trigger photosensitive seizures. Id. at (405.1, 407.3.2, 407.5, and 408.3.

The Board intends to propose provisions for SSTMs and self-service kiosks based on those for ATMs and fare machines in the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines and additional criteria relevant to SSTMs and self-service kiosks from the Revised 508 Standards. This approach is similar to that taken by DOT in its rule on airport self-service kiosks.

The Board has prepared a side-by-side comparison of these requirements in the ADA and ABA Guidelines, the Revised 508 Standards, and the DOT rule on airport kiosks. This matrix is available in the rulemaking docket at www.regulations.gov/​docket/​ATBCB-2022-0004.

Question 5. The Board seeks comment on this planned approach for the proposed supplementary guidelines for SSTMs and self-service kiosks outlined in this ANPRM.

The Revised 508 Standards contain requirements not included in the ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines that may pertain to ATMs or fare machines. These include a provision that biometrics, where provided, not be the only means of user identification or control. They also require that tickets, fare cards, or keycards, where provided, have an orientation that is tactilely discernible when necessary for use.

Question 6. Should requirements for ATMs and fare machines in the current ADA and ABA Accessibility Guidelines be updated as part of this rulemaking to address additional features covered in the Revised 508 Standards and the DOT rule pertaining to the accessibility of ATMs and fare machines?

Question 7. The Board seeks comments from users and manufacturers of self-service transaction machines and self-service kiosks on their experiences in using or designing accessible machines and the benefits and costs associated with the proposed requirements.

Question 8. The Board seeks comments on the numbers of small entities that may be affected by this rulemaking and the potential economic impact to these entities; these include small businesses, small non-profits, and governmental entities with a population of fewer than 50,000. The Board also seeks feedback on any regulatory alternatives that may minimize significant economic impacts on small entities.

Question 9. Should SSTM and a self-service kiosk which accept credit and debit cards be required to accept contactless payment systems?

Approved by notational vote of the Access Board on June 10, 2022.

Christopher Kuczynski,

General Counsel.

EV Charging Standards – ANSI Roadmap of Standards and Codes

EV charging standards

From EV Charging Stations

Call for Participants to Shape ANSI Roadmap of Standards and Codes for Electric Vehicles at Scale

New York, September 8, 2022: The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is seeking participants to support the development of a roadmap of codes and standards for electric vehicles (EVs) at scale. The roadmap will be developed by the ANSI Electric Vehicles Standards Panel (EVSP).

The roadmap will address critical codes and standards issues including high-power DC charging, storage (i.e., microgrid, distributed energy resource management systems) integrated with DC charging, vehicle grid integration, high-power scalable/interoperable wireless charging, and vehicle-oriented systems. Subject matter experts representing the following types of organizations (among others) are invited to participate:

  • Vehicle OEMs
  • Energy service providers (electric utilities, energy retailers)
  • EV services providers (charging network operators)
  • EV fleet operators / managers
  • EVSE manufacturers
  • Cloud service providers
  • Providers of telematics user services
  • Building energy management system operators
  • Distributed energy resource aggregators
  • Standards developing organizations
  • Non-SDO consortia/alliances
  • Code officials
  • Government (federal, state, local)
  • National labs

Those interested in participating are invited to review the panel architecture and schedule of working group calls and sign up for one or more working groups. The working groups are holding virtual meetings twice a month with subgroups developing content covering specific issues over the next several months. Even those unable to make all the calls can contribute to the document’s development. Public comment on the draft roadmap is targeted for mid-February 2023, and publication of a final roadmap is targeted by mid-May 2023. Participation is open to EV stakeholders that have operations in the United States.

The ANSI EVSP is a consensus-based, cross-sector coordinating body whose objective is to foster coordination and collaboration on standardization matters among public- and private-sector stakeholders to enable the safe, mass deployment of electric vehicles and associated infrastructure in the United States with international coordination, adaptability, and engagement. In the 2011-2014 timeframe, the EVSP developed two versions of a Standardization Roadmap for Electric Vehicles which is available as a historical reference. The current initiative is the result of a June 2021 lab call funding opportunity announced by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE) Vehicle Technologies Office (VTO). The lab call included a codes and standards pillar to “identify and address challenges and barriers to the integration of [email protected] charging with the grid created by uncoordinated development of codes and standards and the rapid advances in vehicle and charging technologies.” Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) leads the codes and standards pillar of the [email protected] lab consortium formed in response, which also includes National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), Idaho National Laboratory (INL), and Sandia National Laboratories (SNL). The [email protected] activity also supports federal and state funding associated with deploying EV charging infrastructure nationwide.

There is no fee associated with participating in the EVSP and, ANSI membership, while encouraged, is not required to participate. The DOE VTO/ANL are supporting ANSI’s facilitation of the EVSP roadmapping effort. Sponsorship opportunities (with associated recognition benefits) are available to interested public- and private-sector stakeholders who would like to provide such support. ANSI is a 501c3 not-for-profit membership organization, and all funds are directly applied to help offset ANSI’s costs of administering the EVSP.

“In order to undertake a comprehensive analysis of the codes and standards needed for the scalable deployment of electric vehicles, it is essential that we engage all affected stakeholders. ANSI invites all interested stakeholders to have a seat at the table and participate in this important initiative,” said S. Joe Bhatia, ANSI president and CEO.

For more information, go to www.ansi.org/evsp.

About ANSI

The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) is a private non-profit organization whose mission is to enhance both the global competitiveness of U.S. business and the U.S. quality of life by promoting and facilitating voluntary consensus standards and conformity assessment systems, and safeguarding their integrity. Its membership is comprised of businesses, professional societies and trade associations, standards developers, government agencies, and consumer and labor organizations.

The Institute represents and serves the diverse interests of more than 270,000 companies and organizations and 30 million professionals worldwide. ANSI is the official U.S. representative to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and, via the U.S. National Committee, the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC). For more information, visit www.ansi.org.

###

 

Jim McCabe | Senior Director, Standards Facilitation | American National Standards Institute

25 West 43 Street, 4th Floor | New York, NY  10036  U.S.A.

[email protected] | Phone: 1-212-642-8921 | https://www.linkedin.com/in/mccabejim/ | he/him/his

Get information about ANSI membership: www.ansi.org/membership

More Posts

WCAG 2.2 Guidelines – What’s New

WCAG Standard image

WCAG 2.2 Guidelines

2.2 has been released as draft for review. Interesting too that Personas listing different fictional people is provided as usability baseline. This is much like what the University of Cambridge did with their Personas.

One change is reduction of level for Focus Visible. Several of the WCAG elements have been used in the ADA Guidelines but WCAG generally does not apply verbatim for closed systems such as kiosks. Many of the areas that WCAG 2.1 addresses are also addressed in ADA and Section 508 so in a virtual sense there is some applicability.

Here are the changes:

Accessibility Testing Tools – Simulating Disabilities by Cambridge

disability simulators

Simulating Disability For More Complete Accessibility Testing

From the University of Cambridge

The Kiosk Association is evaluating creating a test process for kiosk providers to offer customers where they test for accessibility.  Some of the tools that can be learned from are the RNIB Tried and Tested certification.  Members such as Storm Interface have products that have achieved certification under the Tried and Tested programme  (in deference to UK).

Part of the criteria for the RNIB tests includes the use of “simulators”. Inclusive design means an older person with arthritis can conduct a transaction for example. That is inclusive design.

Disability Simulators – Here is the link

disability simulators

disability simulators

 

Accessibility Calculators – Estimating Exclusion

And while it is probably next to impossible to provide accessibility for all and any disabled, you can at least consider the percentage of audience that will be served (and not served)

 

exclusion calculators

exclusion calculators

Managing The Process

managing the test process

managing the test process

Personas — Having a complete set of profiled users is essential

Cambridge persona set

Cambridge persona set

 

RNIB Criteria

Test criteria for RNIB Tried and Tested

RNIB Tried and Tested certification (previously ” RNIB Approved”) relates only to the accessibility and usability of the product, website or app as assessed using the RNIB criteria set out below:

Websites

We assess against WCAG 2.1 AA standards and also include an assessment with high contrast schemes, as this affects a number of partially sighted people. An assistive technology assessment is then carried out using screen reader and magnification programmes to identify usability issues.

Apps

We carry out an assessment against RNIB’s internal app accessibility and usability guidelines. We use the speech and magnification software available on iOS and Android phones using recent or the latest operating systems.

Products

We carry out an assessment against RNIB’s internal inclusive design guidelines, which cover visual, tactile and audio aspects of the user interface. We use simulation devices such as apps and items from the Inclusive Design Toolkitdeveloped by Cambridge University, as well as the knowledge we have gained from observing blind and partially sighted people use products through our user testing.

All areas

For all areas, we carry out observed user testing once the issues raised in the expert assessment have been addressed. Observed user testing is always carried out with a minimum of 10 blind and partially sighted people.

RNIB uses its best endeavours during the testing to ensure accessibility and usability, but we make no comment on the content or general use of products, websites or apps beyond testing the product against the criteria set out above. Our aim is to assist blind and partially sighted people to identify when a product or service is accessible and usable and enable them to make an informed choice. We bear no liability for any use of the website, app or product or any information contained therein.

USEFUL LINKS

More Posts

Access Board Rulemaking Overview

U.S. Access Board Logo

It is expected that the U.S. Access Board will issue its ANPRM this month. Here is some background

From Reginfo.gov

View EO 12866 Meetings Printer-Friendly Version     Download RIN Data in XML

ATBCB RIN: 3014-AA44 Publication ID: Spring 2022
Title: Accessibility Guidelines for Self-Service Transaction Machines
Abstract:This rulemaking would amend the Architectural and Transportation Compliance Board’s existing accessibility guidelines for buildings and facilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Architectural Barriers Act (ABA), located at 36 CFR part 1191, to include guidelines for the accessibility of fixed self-service transaction machines, self-service kiosks, information transaction machines, and point-of-sale devices.  The U.S. Department of Transportation and U.S. Department of Justice are expected, via separate rulemakings, to adopt these amended guidelines as enforceable standards for devices and equipment covered by the ADA.
Agency: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board(ATBCB) Priority: Other Significant
RIN Status: Previously published in the Unified Agenda Agenda Stage of Rulemaking: Prerule Stage
Major: Undetermined Unfunded Mandates: No
CFR Citation: 36 CFR 1191
Legal Authority: 42 U.S.C. 12204    29 U.S.C. 792
Legal Deadline:  None
Timetable:

Action Date FR Cite
ANPRM 08/00/2022
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Required: Undetermined Government Levels Affected: Undetermined
Federalism: Undetermined
Included in the Regulatory Plan: No
RIN Data Printed in the FR: No
Agency Contact:
Christopher Kuczynski
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
1331 F Street NW,
Washington, DC 20004
Phone:202 272-0042
TDD Phone:202 272-0076
Email: [email protected]

 

06/17/2022 3014-AA44 3014-ATBCB Accessibility Guidelines for Self-Service Transaction Machines Pending Review
01/06/2020 3014-AA42 3014-ATBCB Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles; Rail Vehicles Published 02/07/2020 Consistent with Change
08/03/2016 1105-AB50 1105-DOJ/LA Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973) Published 01/03/2017 Consistent with Change
06/21/2016 3014-AA38 3014-ATBCB Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles Published 11/18/2016 Consistent with Change
06/14/2016 1190-AA59 1190-DOJ/CRT Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Title II and Title III of the ADA) Published 06/14/2016 Consistent without Change
08/31/2015 1190-AA59 1190-DOJ/CRT Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Title II and Title III of the ADA) Published 03/01/2016 Consistent with Change
09/09/2014 3014-AA38 3014-ATBCB Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles Concluded 06/02/2015 Withdrawn
06/14/2013 1190-AA63 1190-DOJ/CRT Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability; Movie Captioning and Video Description Published 07/09/2014 Consistent with Change
03/08/2013 1190-AA59 1190-DOJ/CRT Implementation of the ADA Amendments Act of 2008 (Title II and Title III of the ADA) Published 08/29/2013 Consistent with Change
12/19/2012 3014-AA11 3014-ATBCB Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines for Transportation Vehicles: Passenger Vessels Published 05/30/2013 Consistent with Change

ADA Accessibility Posts Top 6 – August 21

kiosk association kma logo

ADA and Accessibility Posts

Below are the six top posts for ADA from our Flip channel. It is impossible to post every relevant article so we note them in brief so that we can inform others of that content. Generally we post content from U.S. Access Board and the Justice Department. Contact [email protected] for more information.

 

ADA Kiosk Posts

ADA Kiosk Posts

More Posts

ADA Kiosks – Eve Hill Senate Testimony on Federal Technology & Title III

ada kiosks

How To Improve Accessibility – Testimony by Eve Hill July 2022

Testimony of Eve Hill during Senate Hearing. She calls out the Social Security Administration intake kiosks, calls for enforcement tools among other things and ending the immunity of the federal government for its wide-ranging violations. Interesting point raised “if Access Board is given enforcement authority”. Many thanks to Bill Goren and Understanding the ADA

Thursday, July 28th, 2022</time
10:00am
Dirksen Senate Office Building, Room 562

“In a world in which digital communications and services happen at the speed of light, people with disabilities must not be left to rely on slow, obsolete, and expensive analog technologies,” Eve explained in written testimony. “If websites aren’t accessible to people who are blind or low-vision, if videos are not captioned for people who are deaf or hard of hearing, and if kiosks are not built to communicate flexibly, people with disabilities are not just inconvenienced – they are shut out.”

On July 28th one of the leading disability rights attorneys, Eve Hill testified on accessible federal technology before the United States Senate Special Committee on Aging during its hearing entitled “Click Here: Accessible Federal Technology for People with Disabilities, Older Americans, and Veterans.

About Eve Hill —  Partner at Brown Goldstein & Levy and was formerly a Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division. She has spent her career implementing the laws protecting the rights of people with disabilities.

During her testimony, Eve offered her insight on the meaning and history of technology accessibility law as it pertains to Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, which requires all federal agencies to make all their information technology accessible to people with disabilities. She also addressed areas where government oversight and accountability can be strengthened and best practices for achieving/maintaining web and technology accessibility in the federal government.

Excerpts from Testimony

  • If websites aren’t accessible to people who are blind or low-vision, if videos are not captioned for people who are deaf or hard of hearing, and if kiosks are not built to communicate flexibly, people with disabilities are not just inconvenienced – they are shut out.
  • Many individuals with vision disabilities use screen reader software that can convert visually delivered Internet content into an audio or Braille form; however, the visually-delivered content must be properly formatted and structured for the screen reader to work effectively. For instance, a screen reader or similar assistive technology cannot “read” an image. Thus, when images appear on websites they must be paired with “alt-text” that describes the image for screen readers to read. In addition, individuals with vision and manual dexterity disabilities often cannot effectively use a mouse, so websites need to be coded to allow navigation using the keyboard.
  • As the Court in Robles v. Dominos Pizza, LLC, explained, “Defendant contends that its phone line is an acceptable accessibility substitute for its webpage and App. This is not true; it is undisputed that Plaintiff waited over forty-five minutes before hanging up on at least two occasions. No person who has ever waited on hold with customer service – or ever been hungry for a pizza – would find this to be an acceptable substitute for ordering from a website.
  • in February 2022, 96.8% of the top one million home pages still had accessibility barriers. Each page had an average of 50.8 accessibility errors. A user with a disability can expect to encounter one error in every 19 home page elements they use. And most of these errors are simple – low contrast text, missing alt-text for images, incorrectly labeled form inputs, empty links or buttons, and failure to identify the site’s language. If these accessible elements had been incorporated as a matter of course in the design of the site, they would have added nothing to the complexity or cost of the site. In fact, they would have made the sites work better for everyone. The WebAIM Million, The 2022 Report on the Accessibility of the Top 1,000,000 Home
    Pages, https://webaim.org/projects/million/.
  • While issuing digital accessibility regulations for federal, state, and local governments and agencies is a good first step, it is also critical to issue regulations addressing the web accessibility obligations of public accommodations under Title III of the ADA. Private entities, including retail stores, restaurants, medical professionals, entertainment, schools, gyms, and service providers, play significant roles in our lives. Now that they have mostly moved their goods and services online, people with disabilities cannot afford to wait for equal digital access.
  • in 2021, the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation found that 30% of the most popular federal websites were not accessible and nearly half had access barriers on at least one of their most popular pages.
  • If this is the result for websites – the simplest form of information and communication technology to make accessible – one need not guess at the level of accessibility of other forms of technology, such as self-help kiosks, telehealth platforms, multimedia trainings, and office equipment
  • In fact, the accessibility of those types of technology is dismal. Clients of my firm,  alone, are currently dealing with trainings required by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that are totally unusable by screen readers, and intake kiosks used by the Social Security Administration that are not usable by blind people. In each case, people with disabilities are being forced to rely on third parties, and even to reveal private information to strangers, such as security guards, in order to receive service at all.
  • The Social Security Administration has also, as a policy matter, refused to adopt accessible technology at all. For example, it insists on wet-ink signatures on various documents required to apply for Social Security Disability Insurance benefits, in spite of the wide availability, security, and accessibility of electronic signature programs. Although the agency began accepting e-signatures temporarily as a result of litigation during the pandemic, and did so successfully for nearly 18 months, it has refused to change its policy on a permanent basis.
  • For Section 508 to be effective, the federal government needs to stop the inflow of inaccessible technology into its agencies. This requires agencies to pay attention to accessibility at the beginning of a procurement or development. Agencies often rely on Voluntary Accessibility Product Template forms or other statements from vendors made during the procurement process to support their assumptions that selected products meet the Section 508 standards. Unfortunately, these statements are often aspirational, misleading, or confusing and too often do not ensure accessibility. This is particularly problematic when agencies such as the Treasury Department or GSA purchase technology that is then used across the government.
  • If the Access Board is given enforcement responsibility, it must also be given appropriate authority to respond to complaints, to conduct compliance reviews, to engage in informal enforcement activities, such as public notices of violation, and to engage in formal enforcement, such as administrative compliance orders. Of course, with a staff of fewer than 30, the Access Board does not currently have the resources to meet its current responsibilities and add responsibility for oversight of federal government digital offerings.
  • Congress should amend Section 508 to make clear that both taxpayers and federal employees have a private right of action to enforce the law. In addition, Congress should explicitly waive the government’s sovereign immunity to such suits – another argument that has been raised by the government but not decided by the
    courts.
  • Congress should ensure that agencies have strong tools to hold their vendors accountable – including contract recission, liquidated damages, indemnification, and specific performance. Congress should insist that agencies actually use those tools and requiring regular reporting on technology products that were found to be inaccessible, the vendor responsible, and the action taken to remedy the breach.

More Testimony

Anil Lewis Executive Director for Blindness Initiatives

National Federation of the Blind
Atlanta, GA
Excerpt:
The Social Security Administration offers good and bad examples of providing equal access. In one instance, the introduction of technology has made it more difficult for a blind person to access SSA services. Formerly, I would go into a Social Security office, pull a number and wait an indefinite time alongside other citizens. This was frustrating, but equal. With the implementation of the new Social Security kiosks, which are inaccessible to the blind, I am confronted with the option of coordinating my visit with a sighted friend or family member, or asking a complete stranger to enter my Social Security number into the inaccessible kiosk to be added to the service cue. In another instance SSA has demonstrated the benefit of accessibility through the creation of one of the most accessible websites within the federal government. At one time, it was extremely easy to use my screen reader to access the information provided at https://www.ssa.gov/. Unfortunately, this was only as long as the individuals familiar with the technology were on staff. The access continues to diminish as the trained staff retires, or leaves for other employment.

Telehealth Accessibility Guidelines from HHS

telehealth accessibility

Telehealth Accessibility

As we commemorate the 32nd anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Justice Department and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are partnering to publish guidance on the protections in federal nondiscrimination laws, including the ADA, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, requiring that telehealth be accessible to people with disabilities and limited English proficient persons. These laws work in tandem to prohibit discrimination and protect access to health care. The guidance is available here on the Justice Department website.  The guidance is also available here on the HHS website.

“Telehealth has become an evolving and common pathway for accessing healthcare, particularly as our society becomes increasingly digitized,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “It is critical to ensure that telehealth care is accessible to all, including patients with disabilities, those with limited English proficiency and people of all races and national origins. Federal civil rights laws protect patients from discrimination regardless of whether they are receiving health care online or at the doctor’s office. The Department of Justice will vigorously enforce the ADA and other civil rights laws to ensure that health care providers offering telehealth services are doing so free from discrimination.”

“We have seen important expansions in health care technologies, such as telehealth, that provide great convenience and help for people seeking care,” said Acting Director Melanie Fontes Rainer of HHS’s Office for Civil Rights. “This guidance makes clear that there is a legal obligation to ensure that all people receive full access to needed health care and can connect to telehealth services, free of discriminatory barriers. While we celebrate the progress of the ADA, we know how important it remains to uphold the rights of people with disabilities and other protected individuals to make our country accessible and inclusive for all. That work has been a priority of this Administration from day one, and President Biden’s Executive Order on advancing equity explicitly includes people with disabilities in its call for comprehensive action.”

Technological developments and the COVID-19 public health emergency have increased the importance of providing telehealth and greatly expanded its use. Telehealth can take many forms, including communication between a patient and a health care provider via video, phone or other electronic means. While telehealth has many benefits, including making health care more available and convenient, certain populations may face discrimination or other barriers in accessing care provided via telehealth. For example:

  • A person who is blind or has limited vision may find that the web-based platform their doctor uses for telehealth appointments does not support screen reader software.
  • A person who is deaf and communicates with a sign language interpreter may find that the video conferencing program their provider uses does not allow an interpreter to join the appointment from a separate location.
  • A limited English proficient person may need instructions in a language other than English about how to set up a telehealth appointment.

The HHS Office for Civil Rights and Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division have collaborated to provide this new guidance to help health care providers better understand their nondiscrimination obligations and patients better understand their rights under federal law in this area. The guidance provides examples of actions that may be discriminatory and describes steps that providers may need to take to ensure that health care offered via telehealth is accessible. The guidance also provides a list of resources that providers and patients may wish to consult for additional information about telehealth and civil rights protections.

If you believe that you or someone else has been discriminated against because of your race, color, national origin, disability, age, sex or religion in programs or activities that HHS directly operates or to which HHS provides federal financial assistance, you may file a complaint with the HHS Office for Civil Rights at: https://www.hhs.gov/civil-rights/filing-a-complaint/index.html.

If you believe that a telehealth provider has violated your or another person’s civil rights, you may file a complaint with the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division at: https://civilrights.justice.gov/#report-a-violation.

Related Posts

Point CounterPoint – Nobody Likes Self-Checkout CNN

Walmart Self-Checkout

Self-Checkout?

CNN ran an article on “Nobody likes self-checkout”. It made some good points albeit short on any backfill data to support. We talked about it as the only way to make something better is to collect feedback of all sorts. CNN editors are driven by serving audience segments and in the self-service industry we have had to deal with the usual anti-automation, “replaces workers”, and a long list of other complaints.  Automation is scary sometimes to many people. For more information email [email protected]

In Brief

  • Audio can be irritating — maybe but for the disabled customer the lack of audio can result in very poor outcomes with the “helpful” staff.  Imagine you are disabled and getting assistance with the cash back function.  That requires trust.
  • Survey says “67% experienced a failure” at SCO lanes — there is no source quoted or linked.  It appears to be from digital signage firm.
  • Disadvantages for stores listed are expensive to install, often break down and lead to customers purchasing fewer items. They incure higher losses and more shoplifting at self-checkout. — not sure where all that data comes from but other sources such as Oliver POS, Capgemini, NCR say otherwise.
    • According to Civic Science’s recent U.S. survey, 46% of respondents aged 18-34 prefer using self-service over service with a cashier. Likewise, the NCR states that the main reason customers like self-checkout is the convenience. 
  • Self-Checkout is still growing. 29% of transactions at food retailers were processed through self-checkout, up from 23% the year prior, according to the latest data from food industry association FMI. — this is a data stat from FMI on supermarkets for sure.
  • Why is an unloved technology still proliferating?  — Not sure that premise is true.  Having multiple ways to checkout for multiple circumstances, while raising number of transactions and lowering cost, seems clear to us. It isn’t generally a one solution fits all given the supermarket shoppers.  Aldi and others have developed a focus on those customers wanting quick and fast. They don’t deal with the slow and problematic. A bit unfair but surely optimized.
  • The writer calls out CheckRobot as first installed at several Kroger Stores — the real pioneer in the space was Optimal Robotics. In 2001 they hit the 5000 units mark at Kroger. No wonder that Fujitsu bought them in 2004.
    • 2004 — IHL’s market study also reported that shipments of self-checkout systems will grow by about 95 percent in 2004, with the market exceeding $1.3 billion in 2005. Greg Buzek, president of IHL, estimates that 95 percent of the supermarket chains in North America will have some degree of self-checkout by 2006.  “Self-checkout is an absolute necessity, as supermarkets face pressure from Wal-Mart,” Buzek said. “It allows them to shift employees to higher-profit areas of the store, and it gives them a competitive advantage.”
  • Although self-checkout counters eliminated some of the tasks of traditional cashiers, they still needed to be staffed and created a need for higher wage IT jobs, he said. Self-checkout, Andrews added, “delivers none of what it promises.” — — The intent was not to reduce employees. Hybrid checkouts are complex and of course come with support and maintenance. NCR has an entire building in Bentonville just for self-checkout support staff.  Even “just walk out” stores have people, just not in the usual roles and places.
  • Despite all of these “shortcomings”, self-checkout is only expanding.
  • FOMO (fear of missing out) and the “arms race” drives stores — there is some basis in that but self-checkout was slated to be installed of 95% of stores in 2004 according to IHL Group, who is a smart research firm.  We are checking Buzek for comments.

Excerpt

New York (CNN Business)“Unexpected item in the bagging area.”

“Please place item in the bag.”
“Please wait for assistance.”
If you’ve encountered these irritating alerts at the self-checkout machine, you’re not alone.
According to a survey last year of 1,000 shoppers, 67% said they’d experienced a failure at the self-checkout lane. Errors at the kiosks are so common that they have even spawned dozens of memes and TikTok videos.
“We’re in 2022. One would expect the self-checkout experience to be flawless. We’re not there at all,” said Sylvain Charlebois, director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University in Nova Scotia who has researched self-checkout.
Customers aren’t the only ones frustrated with the self-checkout experience. Stores have challenges with it, too.
Comments
It was interesting how they spoke about these things coming about because the cost cutting measures vs. it being something cool for the customer. I think most things come about as cost cutting when you get down to it. Or if it is customer experience then its done for other reasons. Sort of like Santa Claus in the mall or ice skating etc… Done as a draw to get people in the door to spend money. Clearly a self-checkout kiosk does not fall into that category.

I am intrigued though on how to make it a better experience. I’ve found that I’m getting much better at the Fujitsu units at my local grocery store. I’m pretty proficient with them and choose to use it whenever I have only a few items. It gets me on my way much quicker. But how to make it fun or pleasurable and not like pumping gas. That is a thought.

Other links

Problem Areas

Produce —

Self-checkout can be a pain point for shoppers buying produce. More than three in 10 shoppers steer clear of fresh produce when using self-checkout, the Food Industry Association noted in a recent report.

Instead of having to remember the four-digit item code or search through the menu of products to find it, companies like Extenda Retail, KanduAI and Toshiba are looking to make the process simpler and faster with produce recognition solutions. Arigi of Kroger said during NRF that produce recognition software is of keen interest to the grocery chain as it looks to further innovate in self-checkout.

KanduAI, a technology company started in 2018 and headquartered in Tel Aviv, Israel, uses deep learning and artificial intelligence to recognize fruits and vegetables and provide a short list of possibilities to consumers. Shoppers can select if the item is organic or not.

From Grocery Dive