Thread Subject: Re: Meeting Reminder for December 19

Note

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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Dec 19 2006 11:30 AM

Actually, I believe the requirement is that all telecom products be able to
support VCO. They also either need to support TTY connection or provide TTY
functionality.

As I understand it, one of the goals of 508 was to have the environment
support people with disabilities (even if they are not currently present)
rather than to have the personal environment around the person be adapted.
That is 504. This did NOT include having AT where people where not. But all
the Accessible design and AT compatibility was intended to be in the
environment to allow people with disabilities to move into and around in the
government workplace. (and public access to gov info and services too).


Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:25 AM
> To: 'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'
> Cc: Laura Ruby (E-mail); Deborah Buck (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Meeting Reminder for December 19
>
> I can't be on the call today -- but wanted to send some quick
> thoughts and questions on this issue. I agree completely
> that there is a need for the rules to address this issue as
> it is one we have struggled with on an implementation level.
> It seems that perhaps what is being described is a "readily
> substitutable" option that can be applied in certain
> situations instead of requiring built-in access or
> compatibility with add-on AT.
> Questions are as follows:
>
> Is this issue limited to only "closed or self-contained" or
> "appliance-type
> IT" (to use Debbie's descriptive term) products? What
> about substituting
> a TTY, VCO or HCO product for a voice only one? The telecom
> technical standards would appear to allow that (don't require
> every telecom product itself to have TTY, VCO, and HCO
> capabilities built-in or be compatible with add-on such
> products, in fact that is not really much of an option for
> VCO and HCO). However, the functional performance standards
> require all products have either built-in access or "support
> for AT" which has usually been interpreted to mean add-on
> access, not access delivered by a substitute product.
>
> What about the requirements for captioning and video
> description? Does this concept of "readily substitutable"
> have a role there? Should the standards really require that
> 100% of products have captions and video description or could
> you have an option for availability of a substitute product
> with captions/description?
>
> How difficult will it be to define a concept like "readily
> available substitute" so it does not provide an unintended
> decrease in the level of access delivered? Is this more of
> an application issue (Subpart A) than an exception for one
> product type?
>
> And last, I would suggest staying away from the terminology
> "reasonable accommodation" because it has a well defined
> scope that includes lots of options other than providing a
> fully accessible substitute end product (e.g.
> human assistance and other accommodations.)
>
> Diane Golden, NASCIO
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Debbie Cook
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 3:16 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-closed] Meeting Reminder for December 19
>
>
> We have a call scheduled for tomorrow. I apologize to all of
> you for not doing a better job of keeping things up-to-date
> etc. We have had this meeting on the radar, but I have just
> remembered to formally submit it to the calendar. Details are
> as follows:
> December 19: 4:00 Eastern
> Phone: 408-974-8478; pass code 1212
>
> FEDRCC: 616394
>
> Hand-raising: Closed Products
>
>
>
> We also have a meeting scheduled for January 2. Since this is
> immediately following the holidays and the first day back for
> many people, we determined to move that call to January 9th.
> I will ask Tom to cancel captioning for the 2nd and
> reschedule for the 9th and for the 23rd. This will get us to
> the next TEITAC meeting.
>
>
>
> This subcommittee has really struggled with issues of scope
> and what constitutes a closed product. I'm hoping some of
> this will sort itself eventually as we move toward a group
> product (which I hope isn't closed.) So, for tomorrow I would
> like to determine the criteria for what
> constitutes:
>
> The exception for appliance-type IT, like calculators.
>
> It has been proposed and widely accepted that we would
> "...grant an exception because suitable alternative
> appliances are available. That is, don't require an agency to
> purchase only talking calculators [or ones with accessible
> keypads] because it's burdensome and because talking
> calculators are available."
>
> Question:
>
> If we grant this exception, how does an agency demonstrate
> that the availability is true for the specific products they
> wish to purchase. What characteristics must those
> alternatives possess or is it enough to say that the agency
> can "reasonably accommodate" and therefore wishes to wave its
> 508 obligation? Does the solution provider become responsible
> for providing the alternatives to the agency?
>
>
>
> We need to describe what qualifies for such an exception and
> how it will be measured.
>
>
>
> Deb
>
>

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University