Thread Subject: Re: fundamental alteration
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: Aapdjenifer@aol.com
Date: Thu, Jan 11 2007 10:20 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Diane Golden: "Re: fundamental alteration"
- Previous message in thread: KateLee32@aol.com: "Re: fundamental alteration"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
No, I am not comfortable with fundamental alteration of a product being
stretched to procurement.
This is confusing the procurement process with the requirement for
accessibility of a product.
Jenifer
AAPD
In a message dated 1/11/2007 11:40:17 AM Eastern Standard Time,
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = writes:
I think it's clear (at least to me) that from our recent discussion relating
to business needs versus accessibility and 'best meets' that clarification
is needed. However, the issue is WHAT that clarification is or will be.
Katie Lee
Hearing Loss Ass'n of America
In a message dated 1/11/2007 10:38:24 AM Eastern Standard Time,
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = writes:
My question to the TEITAC is whether you are comfortable with
fundamental alteration of a product being stretched to mean fundamental
alteration of a procurement? In other words do you understand the
parameters of fundamental alteration and do you want to change them? Do
you want to recommend some advisory notes that provide clarification?
- Next message in Thread: Diane Golden: "Re: fundamental alteration"
- Previous message in Thread: KateLee32@aol.com: "Re: fundamental alteration"
WebAIM is an initiative of:
