Thread Subject: Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should beCovered
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.
From: David Wysocki
Date: Fri, Nov 17 2006 12:35 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Identifyiing SpecificHardware that Should beCovered"
- Previous message in thread: None
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Greetings - Based on our sub-committee meeting today, addressing the
larger concerns raised at the full committee meeting last week in DC, we
find ourselves in need of identifying what specific hardware should be
addressed by this subcommittee and in what ways do we interface with
other subcommittees. This is especially important as more cross-over
and changing roles occur among existing and newer technology (e.g.,
PDA/Phone combos [Blackberries, Treos etc.], handhelds, smart phones,
programmable LCD projectors with memory chip and/or network capacity,
etc.). Additional concern rises as these technologies become more the
norm and common method to perform essential job duties, such as
Blackberries. Terry Weaver (GSA) raised another concern explaining
that training the public is part of the federal government's role and
considerations of how the training is accessed (Podcasts, through
handhelds, etc.) becomes an issue for 508 accessibility as well.
So, our sub-committee is being asked to consider what should be included
under "hardware", keeping factors in mind such as:
* What broader-based and multi-function technology is currently
part of IT that wasn't existent or playing as big of a role during the
previous 508 writing?
* Based on the broader roles of previously single-role hardware,
what can we expect to have to address with this 508 refresh assuring we
build a robust coverage with decent applicability until the next
* What's current, what's common, and what can we expect to be so
in the not-too-distant future?
* Is the hardware considered an open or closed system, or
As we chime in with what we think should or should not be covered, and
why, please also consider adding to the above initial list of
considerations. Regards - David
David J. Wysocki, MS, OTR, ATP
Assistant Vice President,
Workforce Development / Assistive Technology
Easter Seals National Office
230 W. Monroe St., Suite 1800
Chicago, IL 60606
Direct Line: 312-551-7175
Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Be an angel of change. You can change the lives of people with
Earn your wings at www.easterseals.com <http://www.easterseals.com/>
- Next message in Thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Identifyiing SpecificHardware that Should beCovered"
- Previous message in Thread: None