Thread Subject: Re: Draft Questions

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: David Poehlman
Date: Wed, Jan 03 2007 6:30 PM

I agree withh Greg hear though I bbeleive what has happened in
reality is that accessibility has not been the goal of implimentation
rather thatt acheiving legal compliance has become the goal and if
accessibility is to be truly gained, thiss somehow needs to be
addressed. I don't see a lot of real accessibility coming out of the
current 508. I have seen a lot of justification for what is termed
compliance but which falls short of actual accessibility..

On Jan 3, 2007, at 4:19 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

Hmmmm

I believe that accessibility is in fact a civil rights issue. So it
would
trump other factors - up to the undue burden line.



However, it is not always possible, so it is not absolute. The
government
will need to buy things that are not accessible if accessible
versions do
not exist or are not up to the task at all. And even our guidelines
do not
make things accessible to all.



But accessibility is not just another factor in the purchasing
process. As
far as I understand, it was / is a fundamental decision that the
congress
made that the federal electronic workplace be accessible to people with
disabilities when it is not an undue burden.


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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 7:26 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Draft Questions

I believe I agree with Karen, and if we can recommend clarifying
language in
this regard we will be doing an enormous service to improving
"access" to
information and data for people with disabilities. If we can clarify
the
pecking order to some extent as is possible, it will be up to the FAR
council to adopt that clarified language into the far appropriately
as they
see fit. If we provide more fundational language for the FAR council to
work with, the work will be easier for them down the road.







Allen Hoffman

DHS Office on Accessible Systems & technology






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Lybarger,
Barbara (MOD)
Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 8:57 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Draft Questions

The statutory language is pretty clear that 508 is meant to trump other
factors, except where an exemption applies. It would seem that the
regulatory language should go in a direction that makes it clear to FAR
that, as the Congress intended, enforce 508 does trumps a variety of
other
factors.



Barbara Lybarger




_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
Golden
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 6:30 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Draft Questions

Again I'm going to emphasize something Michael said --



"The problem with the "Best Meets" language is that it contradicts with
established procurement procedures by stating in effect that
accessibility
trumps all other factors."



That in a nutshell is the issue with the current language of 1194.2
(b). The
question seems to be does the TEITAC make any recommendations
regarding this
language? If so, what should be recommended? Would adding wording like
"applied in accordance with the FAR or other adopted agency procurement
policies" or some similar type of reference into 1194.2 be a starting
point?


Diane Golden

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Weinstein,
Michael
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2006 2:41 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Draft Questions

Norman,



Thanks for the input. I believe Section 508 can reach its full
potential if
effectively implemented consistent with established procurement
procedures.
The IT market is fiercely competitive and a procurement system that
encourages vendors to develop innovative accessibility solutions for
their
products would go a long way to achieving the objectives of Section 508.



If accessibility is a factor in a "best value" determination vendors
would
be encouraged to develop innovative accessibility solutions since
this can
prove advantageous in the competition. Additionally, agencies can weigh
accessibility with the other factors to determine the best product to
meet
its needs.



The problem with the "Best Meets" language is that it contradicts with
established procurement procedures by stating in effect that
accessibility
trumps all other factors.



I am not a technical person but merely a procurement lawyer who
strives for
consistency. It may be helpful to include language clarifying that the
relevant regulation is not intended to alter established procurement
procedures or something to that effect.















Michael Weinstein, Esq.
Contract Administrator
Systems Research and Applications Corporation, a wholly owned
subsidiary of
SRA International, Inc.
3434 North Washington Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22201
(P) 703-284-6165
(F) 703-284-1370
Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

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