Thread Subject: Re: SubpartA-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: Debbie Cook
Date: Thu, Mar 22 2007 2:35 PM

A digital thermometer might be different than HVAC. The HVAC displays
information but in the original definitions we did not see it as exchanging,
storing etc. The thermometer on the other hand is much like a calculator. It
gets an input (biometric in this case) and provides an output or result.
Mine has memory and can retain and compare the outputs which is a pretty
sophisticated IT function.
----- Original Message -----
From: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front. and


I think we are breaking new ground here when we speak of medical devices.
Do we have a recommendation to replace the current definition in the
Standard under EIT? It says, midway down,:
The term does not include any equipment that contains embedded information
technology that is used as an integral part of the product, but the
principal function of which is not the acquisition, storage, manipulation,
management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange,
transmission, or reception of data or information. For example, HVAC
(heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) equipment such as thermostats
or temperature control devices, and medical equipment where information
technology is integral to its operation, are not information technology.
I don't think we've made any decisions about this part of the definition,
particularly because it is a definition not limited to 508. Is a digital
thermometer EIT?




"Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
03/22/2007 10:30 AM
Please respond to
"TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To
"TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
cc

Subject
Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA- Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,
Add Personal Use to front. and






I think you illustrate my thinking better than I did.
Scoping exceptions is critical, and while calculators might be more
complicated to figure out than they should be for some, it isn't the end
of the world. Then again, maybe $2 calculators can be more accessible?




Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Debbie
Cook
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 2:20 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta]SubpartA-
Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and

Digital medical products would probably be E&IT.

And the cash register introduces an entirely different concept. Now, in
addition to exempting the calculators et al, we're now talking about
exempting big items. (Some per centage of the copiers etc.) So I'm
wondering if it leaves a little band in the middle and where are the
lines? I've been very in favor of legitimizing some of what goes on
already in the name of defining and ultimately limiting it, but now
we're working both ends. And this worries me a lot. Why then should all
of anything be accessible? If we're only going to buy a couple of the
accessible ones, who is going to make them? What will it be worth to
them? If there's no mass production, the accessible ones will cost too
much. And they won't be there when needed.
I haven't been inclined to be an extremest, but I would move that way
rather than to exempt everything except computer hardware and software.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and


Hmmmm
Are these E&IT?

The cash registers is a good one to discuss.
But thermometers and glucometers and stethescopes?

Are we talking about the cash register as an item for exemption category
we have been discussing for personal calculators?


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
> Golden
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:56 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front.
> and
>
> I think we're a bit too stuck in the "office environment"
> trying to identify the kinds of products that need the "narrow use -
> readily substitutable"
> exception. We have issues in state government with things like cash
> registers, do we need to buy all of them with speech output options,
> large visual display screens, etc.?
> Same with small medical products like thermometers and glucometers (do

> they all need to talk)? Do all stethescopes need to be amplified?
> I'm sure there are many similar examples in other "non-office" type
> environments that are part of government agencies.
>
> Diane Golden
> NASCIO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Debbie
> Cook
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:22 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front.
> and
>
>
> Thismay come down to someting like electronic office supplies.
> Calculators may abe about all that come into it frankly. Most agencies

> have contracts for cell phones, even small printersetc. The key would
> be user selectable if it exists. In my office we don't even get to
> select the calculators except from a particular group. Common practice

> is that employees routinely select these and in this case they would
> not all have to be accessible or could have different accessibility.
> But if procurement is tightly controlled, thn no prodeucts including
> the calculator would fly on this. So maybe the key is not the type of
> product as much as how procurement decisions are made.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 12:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft
> -(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and
>
>
> 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.
>
>

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