Thread Subject: Re: Servers and other hardware

From: Rex Lint
Date: Sun, Feb 25 2007 2:10 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: Truesdell Nick: "Re: Servers and other hardware"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

I'd say ALL the exceptions are for the agency to claim - the law applies to
agencies, not companies, that is, 508.

Rex Lint, Consultant
Chair, Section 508 Working Group
Information Technology Ass'n of America
PH: 603-860-7651



_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Truesdell Nick
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 8:48 AM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Servers and other hardware



I would like to second what Terry said regarding the exception; the agency
claims it and not the vendor. In many cases an operating environment can
qualify a product as a back-office exception. For example many organizations
do not allow or disable remote features of servers and other similar
devices. In this case a vendor may say it is not a back-office product
because it allows remote access but in actuality it is required to only be
used in the physical space where it is located.



Nick Truesdell
Information Technology Accessibility Center - ITAC
Information Resources Accessibility Program - IRAP
Desk: 202-283-5536
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =





_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Wednesday, February 21, 2007 5:43 PM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
Cc: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC desktop/portable
(hardware) subcommittee'; 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Servers and other hardware


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>

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: Truesdell Nick: "Re: Servers and other hardware"