Thread Subject: Re: Basic questions
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
Date: Wed, Nov 15 2006 9:05 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Basic questions"
- Previous message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Basic questions"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
TEITAC Self-contained Closed Committee,
Real World Considerations:
While certainly the offerings of large office multifunction devices that
copy, print, fax, scan, etc. outnumber standalone copiers- as was
previously mentioned, manufacturers do not have control over how customers
actually use them once purchased. In some cases, these devices are never
connected to the network. This is sometimes because the customer does not
have a network drop where they want to place the machine OR due to
security concerns. Security is a major concern of the federal government
and we should not assume that all agencies will want to put these machines
on the network.
Also, if the accessibility of these multifunction devices is to be
provided remotely through a PC- this requires the additional purchase of a
PC for each machine + the AT software. I agree that this is a convenient
solution, but not all of our federal and state customers (who have adopted
508) will want to incur this expense. We cannot assume that it is
practical to connect the multifunction device to their users workstation.
It is possible that the user with a disability's work area is on the other
side of the department from the multifunction device- so purchasing a
dedicated PC is often the best solution for remote access. Though again,
Due to Equivalent Facilitation (Subpart A 1194.5), manufacturers have been
able to design copiers/multifunctional devices to meet the 508 standards
through the machine itself OR by providing the accessibility remotely. We
can decide based on our customers preferences, and both are worthy
advancements. Speech guidance and recognition can also be provided
directly from the copier/multifunction device. It's available now and can
be more widely so in the future. Let's not hinder this progress by
requiring remote access.
Government Policy and Compliance Analyst
Government Marketing Division
Canon USA, Inc.
TEL: (703) 807-3158
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
"Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
11/15/2006 09:57 AM
Please respond to
TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
"'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Re: [teitac-closed] Basic questions
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brett, Thomas F [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 7:03 AM
> To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Basic questions
> >Am I missing any product sub-categories here?
> I do not see where Copiers or Fax machines would be in the
> categories you have mentioned.
There are some purely standalone copers and fax machines -- no connection
except power, and for fax, a phone line. But this is surely a dwindling
category. This is where an understanding of the actual products procured
federal agencies would be so valuable. My guess is that pure standalones
account for less than 5% of federal faxing and copying, but it's only a
guess. In the "straw man" spirit, let's say we exclude pure standalones
way I propose for calculators, but include in #2 all products that can be
controlled by a computer.
> >For #2, require that all functions be able to be performed from a
> >workstation (a particular user's workstation or one connected to the
> >peripheral). This means that my screen-reader-equipped computer can
> >the printer/copier remotely, because all functions (including status
> >like empty paper trays) are exposed. This would be a
> significant step
> >forward, and appears to be fully feasible.
> Shouldn't there also be away the if the person could add
> paper if the tray is empty?
Yes. The status of the paper tray (and toner, jams, etc.) would be
by one set of standards, and actually adding paper would be covered by
> To be access remotely from a person's work station would
> require that the Copier/printer be connected to a network.
> This would mean that every agency would be required to
> purchase network copier/printers instead of stand-alone devices.
Not necessarily a network; a single computer or a network. The goal is
two-fold: to require the utilities and drivers to be accessible, and to
require those utilities to cover all essential functions such as reporting
jams and paper tray status.
Note that even single computer peripherals are already capable of doing
these; it's just that some functions are not included in typical user
utilities. And as far as netowrked peripherals are concerned, they are
really quite advanced, with remote management and maintenance capabilities
that let an off-site vendor know things like operating termpaeratures that
may indicate incipient problems. In some of these cases it's just a
question of exposing this information to the user utilities.