Thread Subject: Re: Servers and other hardware

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: terry.weaver@gsa.gov
Date: Wed, Feb 21 2007 3:45 PM

For the rationale regarding the architectural limitations, I defer to the
Access Board.

The way I would respond to the question you posed is that if an agency had
the ability to define its requirements for a "modified" back office
exemption, then they should and could. But I don't think that I would
expect that level of sophistication. I would be thrilled just to know
that the agency didn't listen to the claims of a vendor that servers are
exempted when the agency was planning to install the equipment in a server
room, not a wiring closet. I keep reminding Federal buyers that we make
the decision to claim the back office exemption, not a manufacturer.






"Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
02/21/2007 05:26 PM
Please respond to
"TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To
"'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
cc

Subject
Re: [teitac-hardware] Servers and other hardware






Thanks again, Terry, for this important verification. The exemption is
not about the equipment; it's about the
space in which it is being used. So, for example, all the physical
control provisions that would be applied to
a router (e.g. force requirement on a reset button) are in full effect.

But puzzle me this: why is there an exemption that goes beyond the actual
situation in question? That is,
consider a wiring closet that is not wheelchair accessible. Why not allow
a maintenance person, not a
wheelchair user but with impaired dexterity, to do this job? I can see
the architectural access exemption,
and perhaps a similar one for rack-mounted equipment out of the permitted
reach range, but not anything
beyond that. Am I missing something?

***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:04 PM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
Cc: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee;
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Servers and other hardware


The back office exemption is a location-based exclusion that only the
purchasing Federal agency could claim. It was never intended to address a
class of equipment. The premise was that if a server or a router was to
be located in a space that had physical limitations (eg., a wiring
closet), then the agency could claim this exemption only for the hardware
and software that must be run only from that location. If it was on a
network and the software was to be run remotely, then there wasn't a valid
claim for using the exemption for the software component.




"Thomas Albin" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
02/21/2007 04:26 PM

Please respond to
"TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >



To
"TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
cc

Subject
Re: [teitac-hardware] Servers and other hardware








Hi Gina,
Does this mean that you want to do away with the "back room" exclusion?
Tom Albin

On Feb 21, 2007, at 12:07 PM, Regina Caldanaro wrote:


We've unofficially renamed ourselves "hardware" but the only discussion
<snip>

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