Thread Subject: Re: Draft 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.
From: McCarthy, Jim
Date: Fri, Dec 29 2006 7:35 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Lybarger, Barbara (MOD): "Re: Draft Questions"
- Previous message in thread: mike paciello: "Re: Draft Questions"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Don Barrett states, "I also think the Board needs to comment on the
politics of sponsoring a Committee which provides input to the FAR
Council which has not yet been requested." Reading this, I wondered
what sprung forth a statement of this sort.. Tony also may track along
the same lines stating in relevant part, "It is my understanding that
both OFPP and FAR Council are outside of the scope of TEITAC.
If my understanding is incorrect please correct me regarding the scope
These are discussions toward a work product. All of us can and should
make our views known at this state of the process. If some see a lack
of uniformity of application as hindering the success of 508 in
providing greater access to disabled workers and members of the public,
that view should be advanced. Others have a different view point which
they also should put forth. I for one have benefited from the dialogue
largely originated by Dianne with much good said by others regarding how
"best meets is actually used and what it means in the FAR context.
I cannot completely tell from where Don and Tony's comments spring. I
feel like I may have missed some of the correspondence on the issue. If
that is not in fact the case, the only thing I see that could give rise
to these strong responses is Jessica Brody's statement that there is a
haphazard application of 508 among the several agencies that apply it,
and that guidance from this committee could be an appropriate response.
To me, there should be nothing threatening about that statement. We are
not writing the standards or guidelines, but instead are aiding the
board in its revision of the guidelines. Therefore, it seems to me that
we could recommend almost anything on this issue. If our
recommendations are beyond the scope of our work, the board would be
right to disregard them. I would finally agree with Gregg that
considering whether or not to make such recommendations ought to occur
through a public deliberation of the committee and not by back and forth
emails or comments to some web space somewhere. I am not suggesting
that the process has been done wrong so far. As I said above, I have
benefited from the email discussion and realize that it is the way we
can develop these issues. The discussion should occur as part of the
February meeting or if it cannot, as soon thereafter as possible. Our
resolution on this point should be a part of a full committee meeting
where the issues around this are thoroughly discussed.
National Federation of the Blind