Thread Subject: Re: Subpart A- Draft -(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and

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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Mar 18 2007 12:05 PM

A desk phone is not what I would think of as "Personal use item that can be
bought out of office funds". They are expensive and have to be part of the
overall system. Also, people use more that just the phones on their own
desks. The use them in common areas, meeting rooms, and even other offices.



I thought this was meant to apply to things like 'calculators' and other
small personal use items.

Maybe we should first make a list of things that people think are and are
not in this new category that we are thinking of creating an exception for.
Then figure out how to describe it. And whether it is a good idea. I
think it is a good idea - if we can write it so that it can't be misapplied
easily.

I would think of things in this category as including/excluding


THINGS THAT ARE IN THE EXCEPTION
- calculators
- personal printer (under $300) (if everyone has a different one on their
desk).
- cell phones if people are allowed to pick their own (but not if they have
to use one from a pool or all get the same one)
- PDA if people are allowed to pick their own (but not if they have to use
one from a pool or all get the same one)

THINGS THAT ARE NOT
- personal workstations
- shared devices like
-- fax
-- copier
-- printers
-- Cell phones - if everyone has the same type


Huh, interesting exercise. I'm not coming up with too many things for
examples for the exception and it seems to depend on whether it is common
practice for people to get their own type - or whether the management and
perhaps IT system and support requires / wants everyone to use the same
type.


Other people, take a crack. What would your lists of examples look like.



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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Debbie Cook
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 4:12 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft -
> (g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front. and
>
> I'm having some difficulty with all of this. My concern is
> that we cannot deligate budgetary items although in technical
> guidance we could certainly use it as an example. Is a desk
> phone a personal use item or not? Some would certainly argue
> not though it remains on one desk. Likewise, if the
> calculators are purchased in bulk and employees aren't
> individually selecting them are they really personal use?
> Could anything in the procurement process from the FAR be
> used to help distinquish this?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:09 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft - (g)
> Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front. and
>
>
> I'm not sure how this provision shifted to hearing aids.
>
>
>
> This discussion started out talking about providing an
> exception where non-conformant E&IT could be purchased under
> the supposition that a person with a disability could be
> provided with a different accessible version in the future if
> the need came up (e.g. they were hired into a department or
> promoted into a job that required the inaccessible
> equipment.) the example given was a 'personal use calculator'.
>
>
>
> 1) That is a great example but the way the provision was
> written it could be used to purchase anything. The provision
> did not mention personal use products so presumably the
> provision could apply to small copiers, fax
> machines and many other things. This problem could be fixed
> by adding
> "personal use" to the front of the exception - and that is
> the suggested
> fix. That would keep shared E&IT from being purchased under
> this exception
> that was designed for personal use devices (like calculators,
> cell phones,
> etc.) Note that this provision has nothing to do with
> adaptive equipment
> or AT. It is an exception from the rules for mainstream E&IT
> that needs to be constrained to only those products it is
> meant to provide an exception for.
>
>
>
> 2) The second part, "from standard office supplies budget"
> stems from the biggest concern I have heard from consumers.
> That exceptions like this are made, and then when they go to
> ask for an accessible version they are told that there is no
> money from the purchase left to pay for it and there is no
> money in the budget. Their supervisor is perfectly willing
> but there is no
> money for it. For small items that would fit into the
> standard office
> budget this is not a problem. For larger items it can be.
> One could
> decide that office computer workstations fit under this
> provision (even with
> the 'personal use' clause. But that might be larger than an
> office manager
> could pay for. Some means for limiting this to small,
> personal things is
> needed. The suggestion would be to add "from standard
> office supplies
> budget". But it doesn't have to be that.
>
>
>
> Does someone have other suggestion(s) to keep this limited to
> small, and personal use items?
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
>
>
> Sorry to not be clear.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Deborah Buck
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:26 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft - (g) Products
> withnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front.
>
> In some circumstances they are personal items- particularly
> for individuals
> who have cognitive disabilities, auditory processing
> disorders, etc. In
> other circumstances they are available for general use
> -conference rooms,
> auditoriums, etc.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jagbell
> Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:49 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft - (g) Products
> withnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front.
>
>
>
> We need to be very careful. While I agree that hearing aids
> are personal
> items, Assisitive Listening Devices or FMs are not.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 15, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Deborah Buck wrote:
>
>
>
> I shared my concerns with the TEITAC Co-chairs on the
> discussion on use of
> the term "personal use" and wanted to share it with this workgroup.
>
>
>
> (g) was proposed because 2 workgroups identified this issue
> as problematic-
> indicating to me that the current language does not suffice
> and does not
> provide enough guidance to be implemented consistently and
> with confidence.
>
>
>
> I'm not sure that classifying devices as "personal devices"
> or "standard
> devices" is the best approach. Unless very clearly defined I
> could see
> broad and inconsistent interpretations of these terms and as result
> legitimate complaints from employees. From a procurement
> perspective I would
> think this would be quite challenging to determine what constitutes a
> personal device versus a standard device.
>
>
>
> Hearing aids, wheelchairs, etc. are considered "Personal
> devices" and we
> should be careful not to mix the two- devices used in the office by an
> individual to complete their job responsibilities and devices
> that are used
> by the individual in all environments- not exclusive to the work
> environment. In addition, once you tie the purchase to the
> individual and
> their individual needs doesn't it become an accommodation, not a 508
> procurement. Agencies have the requirement to provide
> alternate means of
> access when conforming to 508 constitutes an undue burden. I
> would very
> much like to hear from 508 coordinators on whether labeling an item
> "personal use" will address the issue.
>
>
>
> The suggestion to add "from standard office supplies budget"
> so it reads
>
> which can and will be purchased from the standard office
> supplies budget to
> meet individual needs
>
> I think that level of specificity goes beyond the scope of
> the TEITAC and
> the Access Board. Its not an appropriate for standards to dictate what
> budget or cost accounting code agencies use for purchases.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
> Vanderheiden
> Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:56 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft - (g) Products with
> narrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front.
>
>
>
> First - thanks for pulling all this together. Lots of work.
>
>
>
>
>
> RE:
>
>
>
> (g) Products with narrow delineated use, no operating system
> or software,
> no capacity for assistive technology to be attached to the
> product, such as
> personal use calculators, for which an agency can readily document the
> availability of specialized products, just as a talking calculator or
> calculator with large visual display, which can and will be
> purchased to
> meet individual needs, are not required to comply with this part.
>
>
>
>
>
> In general I think this is good. I wondering if it is
> really needed. I
> think it is covered by the old language. But it is suble and
> this can help
> people get past the "small personal items" issue.
>
>
>
>
> Two EDITS
>
>
>
>
> 1) I think it needs to have "personal use" added to the front
> so it reads
> "Personal use product with narrow..etc" .
>
> Shared or public products should not get pushed into this category.
>
> "Narrow use" by itself is not clear enough and is undefined.
> I thought it
> meant 'not multipurpose" but could also be construed to mean
> only used by
> people in a group or office or floor or..
>
>
>
> 2) The biggest concern I've heard raised about this (other than no
> inadvertantly creating a loophole that can be expanded to
> cover Mack trucks)
> was that agencies say they are willing but it isn't in their
> budget - so
> nothing happens. To make sure this isn't misapplied to
> things beyond
> the ability of departments to buy easily lets add "from
> standard office
> supplies budget" so it reads
>
> which can and will be purchased from the standard office
> supplies budget to
> meet individual needs
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
>
> ------------------------
>
> Gregg Vanderheiden
>
>
>
>

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