Thread Subject: Re: Personal use items
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: tom brett
Date: Mon, Mar 19 2007 6:50 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Baker, Robert C.: "Personal use"
- Previous message in thread: Jagbell: "Re: Personal use items"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
A more germane argument would be where a Government employee requires a
calculator to perform their job. They are in an accident and lose a number
of fingers. Since the government purchased a device that could not be
operated without fingers, the government will be required to purchase
additional equipment to all this employee to perform their job.
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jagbell
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 9:40 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Personal use items
I strongly object to this exemption.
People do not operate in neat and separate compartments. Just last
week, I was in someone's office and needed to use their calculator.
This happens more often than not. I am not great with large numbers
in my head and I do not walk around with a calculator on me at all
The same with cell phones. What happens if there is an emergency
and there is only one cell phone available. If you are the person
having the heart attack in the street, I am quite confident that you
would be praying that your cell phone is accessible to the person who
needs it who may not have their cell phone with them. Also, some
cell phone providers can have a signal while others cannot. If their
cell phone did not, I am sure that if yours does that you would want
them to be able to use it.
On Mar 19, 2007, at 9:31 AM, Baker, Robert C. wrote:
> Now that the micro-purchase exemption is no longer in force - Section
> 508 is being applied to all personal use items.
> I don't think there needs to be a distinguishing characteristic
> based on
> the purchasing vehicle used to procure an item (BPA, IDIQ, e.g. a
> Each agency will procure these items differently - just as each agency
> will use different procurement vehicles to acquire technology to
> reasonable accomodations to individual employees.. The exemption
> be better applied to a clear definition of "personal technology".
> A possible definition could be:
> - personal hardware devices purchased for individual usage solely for
> non-disabled individuals may qualify for an "individual usage"
> Examples of applicable personal hardware devices include calculators,
> cell phones, PDAs, personal memory devices, personal headsets.
> - personal hardware devices purchased for individual usage for
> individuals must meet applicable standards for the individual's
> - hardware devices necessary to support the agency's hardware
> infrastructure do not qualify for an exemption include (desktop
> computers, laptops, LAN Cards, VPN Cards, printers, fax machines,
> copiers, desk telephones, etc.)
> This may be too loose. Any suggestions?