Thread Subject: Re: Subpart A- Draft - Definitions -Assistivetechnology service.

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: Jagbell
Date: Thu, Mar 15 2007 3:30 AM

The correct word for people with hearing loss is assistive listening
device so I would use the word device. Also, since we are defining
captioning and audio description, it is odd to omit AT. By not
including it when we define similar items for other parts of the
hearing spectrum, it appears that it is not neccessary.

Best,

Janice
On Mar 14, 2007, at 11:27 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

> I would concur about keeping AT and deleting AT Service.
>
>
>
> As to AT DEVICE. That is fine but if we DO change the definition
> to AT Device, then we can't use the term AT anywhere in the
> standard. We would have to use the term AT DEVICE (since that is
> what we defined). I can see that that might cause problems with
> AT like screen readers etc that are software. So I'm not sure AT
> DEVICE will work.
>
>
>
> You might say Assistive Technology (as used in this standard).
>
>
>
> There will always be different definitions of this for different
> applications.
>
>
>
>
>
> Anyone got a better word for DEVICE that works everywhere we want
> to use Assistive Technology?
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Deborah Buck
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:25 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft - Definitions -
> Assistive technology service.
>
> Thanks Greg-
>
>
>
> It would be helpful for respondents to keep comments in separate
> threads. If you can remember try to label them Application,
> Exceptions or Definitions- this will help immensely to keep track
> of the responses and set up some rules for pre-sorting so nothing
> gets overlooked or lost.
>
>
>
> We currently are not using the term AT Service in the regs (that I
> know of). However the term âAssistive Technologyâ is currently used
> in the regs; if there is consensus to keep the term as Assistive
> Technology the statutory definition of AT is not consistent with
> what is currently in the 508 regs, but includes devices and
> services- this would necessitate a definition of AT Service. If
> however, there is consensus to change the term to AT Device I see
> no reason to include the definition for AT Service. I actually
> think adding the definition of service opens the door to services
> and supports that are not a part of the scope and function of 508.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:10 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft - Assistive
> technology service.
>
>
>
> I will put comments in separate emails to facilitate discussion
> threads.
>
>
>
>
>
> 1) Assistive technology service.
>
> a. There is no need to define a term that is not used in the
> standard. Are we using the term somewhere?
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
>
>
>
>
>

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