Thread Subject: Re: Identifyiing SpecificHardwarethat 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: Debbie Cook
Date: Mon, Nov 20 2006 7:50 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should beCovered"
- Previous message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Identifyiing SpecificHardware that Should beCovered"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
There is certainly overlap between the closed products and the hardware
since both contain hardware. But the closed products also contain software
and this aspect is what generally poses the access issue. It is my
experience that the hardware regs are interpreted as meaning PC's and
peripherals and that closed is something not connected to a PC. So while I
might ultimately be very open to combining the categories to resolve the
overlap, I'm pretty concerned that the software aspects must still be
considered. Alternatively, we could consider all hardware together and move
the software aspects of closed products into the web/software construct, but
perhaps this is better handled in the Editing committee rather than trying
to incorporate more over there right now.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Cc: "'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC self contained/closed products
subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC General Interface
Accessibility Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 6:04 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-hardware] Identifyiing SpecificHardware
that Should beCovered
Sorry for the cross-posting, for all you hard chargers who are on so many
TEITAC has four subcommittee that directly address hardware:
Desktop/Portable, Telecom, Self-contained/Closed, and General Interface.
We could decide to assign all Hardware issues to Desktop/Portable and
re-name it Hardware. This would give that subcommittee more work, but at
least everything hardware would be under one roof. Part of the
re-assignment could include 1194.23(k)1-4, the "mechanical control" items
now in Telecom, but repeated in several other categories in the current 508.
Alternately, 1194.23(k)1-4 could be assigned to General Interface. Right
now General Interface is only identifying which Standards go across several
product categories, including 1194.23(k)1-4, but has no forward-looking
assignment of its own.
The other issue staring us in the face is the notion of
self-contained/closed systems: is this really a category of products, or a
characteristic of some hardware?
I'd like to see a good dialog on these 3 questions, with a resolution so
that we can move forward soon without gaps or overlaps in our work:
1. Do we create a Hardware subcommittee out of Desktop/Portable?
2. If so, do we assign the mechanical control items to Hardware or General
3. Is "self-contained/closed" a category or a hardware characteristic?
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
From: David Wysocki [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 2:32 PM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
Subject: [teitac-hardware] Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should
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
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
* 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 refresh?
* 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 partially
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: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Be an angel of change. You can change the lives of people with
Earn your wings at <http://www.easterseals.com/> www.easterseals.com
- Next message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should beCovered"
- Previous message in Thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Identifyiing SpecificHardware that Should beCovered"