Thread Subject: Re: SubpartA- Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Mar 16 2007 11:15 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: None
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Another vote for including 'services' in definition of AT.



As we head into a time with "virtual AT" and "services on demand" that can
be automated, we should including the possibility that AT "products" could
be network services as well. but since people think of products as
hardware - I think products and services might be a good idea. Since
this is a definition of assistive TECHNOLOGY we may need to qualify
'services' to limit them to services that are "technologies". But I think
the wording suggested by Diane would do that just fine.




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Katie
Haritos-Shea
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 12:32 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.

I agree with adding service to the definition.



Katie



-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Golden
Sent: Mar 16, 2007 11:42 AM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft
-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.




I believe the suggestion for adding something about AT "service" or at least
indicating that services and products were part of the AT defintion stemmed
from the telecom area where access is delivered in a sort of bundled
product/service system. (I think this came up early on in telecom
discussions as David Baquis was identifying issues from the Access Board's
perspective.) So to the extent that the technical standards for telecom
cover both products/services in a system, the idea was the definition should
cover that. If indeed that was the impetus, perhaps a much simpler solution
is to just add the word "service" in the current definition and leave the
term "assistive technology" with not differenciation between device and
service.



Assistive technology. Any itme, piece of equiment, SERVICE, or system,
whether acquired commerically, modified, or customized . . .



Diane Golden

NASCIO



-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Deborah Buck
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 8:14 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft
-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.

Pretty much anything can fall under the definition of AT. AT can include
everything from a tilt in space wheelchair to an electric can opener to toys
and beyond - well beyond. A plain old telephone that is hearing aid
compatible could be considered AT and could be considered Accessible
Mainstream Technology. The intent of the definition of AT is to ensure that
it is very broad- where the limits come in (which is not an issue for 508)
is at the funding end. 3rd party payors (Medicaid, Private insurance,
Medicare) in most cases will not pay for accessible mainstream technology -
for example Medicaid is unlikely to pay for a product purchased off the
shelf at Radio Shack or Wal- Mart, but they will (in most cases) pay for AT.
I understand Jim's comments and the distinction and awareness you're trying
to promote- but if we are focusing on including definitions of terms in
Subpart A that appear in the standards - AT is a term that is clearly used.
I don't want to presume that AMT won't be a term used and assume we don't
need a definition- have any of the workgroups used this term in drafting
standards- in which case we would need to provide a definition in Subpart A.




-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jagbell
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:37 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft
-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.



I disagree. I think it is ensuring that products are hearing aid
compatible. That could fall under assistive technology.





On Mar 15, 2007, at 7:01 PM, Jim Tobias wrote:



I don't think we need "assistive technology service", because that's usually
about client

evaluations, prescription of AT, etc. -- all accommodations (504) rather
than the mass

market products we're talking about in 508. Agreed?



On the other hand, I've always had a problem with the AT definition as it
is. It would seem

to swallow up all accessibility, since a mainstream product with
accessibility features fits

that definition. In the spirit of 255, which has a cascading view of
accessibility -- first try to

make the mainstream product accessible, then use AT if the mainstream
approach won't

work -- I think we should make a distinction between AT and "AMT", as Larry
Goldberg

named it: "accessible mainstream technology". Why keep the distinction?
Because the

two industry segments are so different; their markets are different; their
products are usually

different; their funding sources are different; where expertise about them
resides is different....

It's not for the reason some AT enthusiasts think, that somehow AT is a
lesser category. It's

that the distinction is an important one from so many perspectives.



******
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1 732.441.0831 voice/tty
skype jimtobias
+1 908.907.2387 mobile






_____


From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:32 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft -
Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.

I concur, we should just include all the definitions and let the
access-board folks sort it out.







Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Deborah Buck
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:51 AM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft - Definitions
-Assistivetechnology service.

Here is my suggestion- maybe the way to approach this is to include all of
the definitions. See my rationale below

Assistive Technology- The term 'assistive technology' means technology
designed to be utilized in an assistive technology device or assistive
technology service.



Assistive Technology Device - Any item, piece of equipment, or system,
whether acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is commonly
used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of
individuals with disabilities.



Assistive Technology Service:

A service consisting of expanding the availability of access to technology,
including electronic and information technology, to individuals with
disabilities. (This is a pared down version of the current definition, but
it includes the applicable part (G) of the statutory definition of AT
Service see below)





I'm not sure why you think using the term and definition for AT Device might
cause problems for screen readers that are software. Revisit the definition
of AT Device- the emphasis is mine

Any item, piece of equipment, or system, whether acquired commercially,
modified, or customized, that is commonly used to increase, maintain, or
improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities.

The definition of AT Device is so broad that pretty much anything can be
considered an AT Device- you could drive a jumbo jet through that definition
and under certain circumstances it could be considered AT. Under this
definition- software is considered a device.



The Definition of AT Services as included in the draft is a significantly
modified version of the definition in the AT Act (see below). The definition
of AT Services include- evaluation, purchasing, selecting, customizing,
coordination supporting therapies, training or technical assistance for the
individual, training or technical assistance for professional and maybe the
most pertinent to our discussion '(G) a service consisting of expanding the
availability of access to technology, including electronic and information
technology, to individuals with disabilities. (G was language that was added
to the definition of AT Service as a result of the 2004 amendments to the AT
Act). While referencing parts (A) - (F) might result in an expansion of the
scope of Section 508 the new addition (G) is pertinent to 508.

'"(5) ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY SERVICE.-The term 'assistive technology service'
means any service that directly assists an individual with a disability in
the selection, acquisition, or

use of an assistive technology device. Such term includes-

'(A) the evaluation of the assistive technology needs of an individual with
a disability, including a functional evaluation of the impact of the
provision of appropriate assistive technology and appropriate services to
the individual in the customary environment of the individual;

'(B) a service consisting of purchasing, leasing, or otherwise providing
for the acquisition of assistive technology devices by individuals with
disabilities;

'(C) a service consisting of selecting, designing, fitting, customizing,
adapting, applying, maintaining, repairing, replacing, or donating assistive
technology devices;

'(D) coordination and use of necessary therapies, interventions, or
services with assistive technology devices, such as therapies,
interventions, or services associated with education and rehabilitation
plans and programs;

'(E) training or technical assistance for an individual with a disability
or, where appropriate, the family members, guardians, advocates, or
authorized representatives

of such an individual;

'(F) training or technical assistance for professionals (including
individuals providing education and rehabilitation services and entities
that manufacture or sell assistive technology devices), employers, providers
of employment and training services, or other individuals who
provide-services to, employ, or are otherwise substantially involved in the
major life functions of individuals with disabilities; and

'(G) a service consisting of expanding the availability of access to
technology, including electronic and information technology, to individuals
with disabilities.





-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:28 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft - Definitions
-Assistivetechnology service.



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: = 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 "Assistive Technology" 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: = 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

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: None