Thread Subject: Re: Meeting Reminder for December 19

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Dec 22 2006 8:25 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Debbie Cook: "Meeting Reminder"
• Previous message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Meeting Reminder for December 19"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

This is good summary

I was also adding two other qualifiers.

1) It had to be a personal device - not a shared device

2) It had to be something inexpensive that a manager would/could purchase a
special one for the person (this you got close to in your writeup but just
said a reasonable number would be included in procurement. I think that it
would be hard to do that way. I think it should be just for little stuff
that falls in this category so that it can indeed match need. A few
scattered about won't work or be found or will turn into just one -- of the
wrong type.)




So copiers etc would not qualify. For cost or personal aspect.


Otherwise good workup I think.




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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 7:20 AM
> To: 'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Meeting Reminder for December 19
>
> Gregg wrote:
>
> > A copier is also an appliance like product. And the fax. And most
> > everything else that is well designed. Phones are appliance
> > like as well.
>
> I think we need a more formal definition of the concept we're
> using, and I'm not sure that "appliance" is the right word,
> but it'll do for now. The idea of an appliance is that it:
>
> 1. cannot be readily controlled from an external device which
> is accessible and allows accessible operation of the
> appliance 2. does not contain and cannot load and run
> additional software which allows accessible operation of the appliance
>
> If I'm hearing the discussion of calculators correctly, it
> sounds as if we are willing to exempt appliances *if and only
> if* there are accessible models (e.g. talking calculators),
> and if the procurement can include a reasonable number of
> such models as accommodations wherever necessary.
>
> Now, there are *some* copiers, fax machines, and phones that
> would fall into this definition. But there are also *some*,
> especially among the products the feds buy, that either can
> be fully controlled by a PC or can load and run additional
> software. The goal of the regs should be to encourage the
> purchase of the latter over the former, right?
>
> I don't think it'll be too hard to write this concept into the regs.
>
>

• Next message in Thread: Debbie Cook: "Meeting Reminder"
• Previous message in Thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Meeting Reminder for December 19"