Thread Subject: Re: todays question

From: Fratkin, Mike
Date: Fri, Jan 12 2007 8:35 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: todays question"
• Previous message in thread: Lybarger, Barbara (MOD): "Re: todays question"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

I concur with this approach that as a minimum the vendor be required to
supply an electronic version. However, I would add that this electronic
version must be in an accessible format. We have required this in the
past which has met with mixed results as vendors do not seem to
understand what "accessible format" means so there probably needs to be
some additional guidance. Agencies should not have to be responsible
for interpreting what the alt text, for example, should be for images or
screen shots. Agencies should not have to be responsible for properly
tagging PDF documents.

Mike Fratkin
Social Security Administration

[Barbara wrote:]

The bottom line is that alternative formats must be available.
Depending on the actual set of parties involved it varies which one is
in the best position to produce the a particular format. What about
leaving it open as a point of negotiation, with the agency ultimately
responsible that the alternative formats be produced as needed and the
vendor obliged to at minium provide digital copy that can be used to do
the formating?


Barbara Lybarger

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = on
behalf of Debbie Cook
Sent: Thu 1/11/2007 6:48 PM
To: TEITAC documentation and technical support
subcommittee
Cc:
Subject: Re: [teitac-documentation] todays question



I think that providing alternative formats is an
accommodation
responsibility of the gency. And, I think there re types
of requests for
alternte formats which may go beyond htose we
traditionally think of
particularly when it ocmes to cognitive accommodation.
But, having said all
that, I do believe the manufacturer has the obligation
to create
environments where alternative formats can be readily
produced. So I think a
requirement more that that for text books where the
manufacturer has to
provide digital formats is more appropriate and probably
more likely to go
through than expecting every manufacturer to produce the
variants of
alternative format that might be requested.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Brett" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC documentation and technical support
subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 3:42 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-documentation] todays question


I agree that the standard should explicitly state that
the manufacturer pays
for the alternate format.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dawn Wilcox
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 6:35 PM
Subject: [teitac-documentation] todays question


I interpret 1194.41 (a) to mean the manufacturer
provides it and pays for
it. but we could make it more obvious by adding - the
manufacturer pays for
and the agency requests alternate formats. Dawn Wilcox
CCLVI




------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

• Next message in Thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: todays question"
• Previous message in Thread: Lybarger, Barbara (MOD): "Re: todays question"