Thread Subject: Re: SubpartA-Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front

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: Thu, Mar 29 2007 10:30 AM

Hmmm.

All the examples are personal use items. I see what you are saying though.

* Do you have examples of things that are not personal use that fit in
here?


* Also, what does "low cost" mean? That could be a good measure. I'm
thinking that the kind of thing a manager can purchase easily would be under
$500. What did you have in mind?


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 10:17 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta]
> SubpartA-Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add
> Personal Use to front
>
> I'm not convinced we should be so focused on "personal use"
> of closed products as an upfront discriminating factor. It
> seems the much more critical characteristics are 1) the
> product is relatively low in cost and 2) products are readily
> available and easily substituted that can deliver a full
> range of access features in discreet "packages". Those two
> characteristics allow the agency to purchase a device with
> the access features needed by one or more individuals instead
> of buying only a product with multiple access features that
> can actually decrease overall access for a particular
> individual (e.g. the calculator that has large keys which
> impedes effective touch key input for a blind person.)
>
> Diane
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
> Deborah Buck
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:31 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta]
> SubpartA-Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add
> Personal Use to front
>
>
> It seems that we have two issues
> 1) Definition of E&IT:
> The definition of E&IT currently does not include medical
> devices. As such they would be modified or adapted on an as
> needed basis in line with the federal government's
> obligations under the ADA and 504. The group would need to
> decide if they want to make a recommendation to the Access
> Board to change the definition of E&IT to include medical
> devices, HVAC and any device that now or in the future stores
> and transmits information. This approach would also extend to
> AT. Would this also apply to what is currently considered
> back office equipment? Part of the challenge with this is
> that no manufactures of those types of devices, with the
> exception of AT, have been engaged in the discussions to
> date. Industry representatives from those groups have not
> been brought to the table. The workgroups have also been
> tasked with looking at the cost benefits of the changes to
> the standards (although I'll admit I'm still at a loss as to
> how to do this) this recommendation would result in a major
> change to the scope of 508 and its impact on industry outside
> of the generally accepted IT companies. The concept of
> commercial nonavailiability would have to be maintained
> because the scope of application would be expanded and while
> many products in the IT arena have caught up to the 508
> standards we're talking about a broader expansion to
> manufacturers that will be starting at square 1 who will not
> even know what 508 is let alone how to modify their products
> to conform to the standards.
> 2) One-Offs
> The discussion started with the suggestion for an added
> exemption for the acquisition of products that meet the
> definition of closed products, but that are "personal use"
> devices. The best example so far has been talking
> calculators, but it seems that as discussions go on the scope
> of products gets broader. The initial suggestion was to make
> a recommendation for an exemption to the standards that would
> apply to a narrow scope of products that can be defined as
> personal use. While I have concerns about defining items as
> personal use we have not come up with a logical way to
> identify these products so that everyone has an understanding
> of the limited application of the exemption. The cost benefit
> issue of requiring all products to conform was raised by one
> of the workgroups.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> David Poehlman
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 7:23 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use
> to front. and
>
> Somewhere, it was suggested that a provision be made to deal
> with this in much the same way as alternate forrmats are
> dealt with., on an as needed basis. I fear that if something
> is not put into the standards to cover this type off
> information bearing and gathering equipment, some willl
> likely loos or not be aable to do the work that require the
> devices. I would say that the standards need to be there and
> a manufacturer needs to demonstrate the ability to deliver on
> the standards a product which if required can meet this need.
> And, yes, the crux of this is that since they are going
> digital and storing and transmitting information in addition
> to just displaying it that this is electronic because it uses
> that power and information ttechnology because it utillizes,
> stores, sends and sometimes receives information. Tough?
> Yes, needed? Yes.
>
> On Mar 28, 2007, at 7:39 PM, Deborah Buck wrote:
>
> No, all computers are not equipped with screen readers, but
> then neither is a copier - it must be accessible without the
> attachment of AT (screen reader). It goes back to the
> discussion of calculators and must all calculators be talking
> calculators- it's a closed product. If you were to consider
> medical/research devices as E&IT wouldn't many be considered
> closed products and required to have accessibility built-in?
>
> Medical devices and Heating, ventilation and air conditioning devices
> (HVAC)
> are currently not included under the definition of E&IT? Are
> you suggesting that we make a recommendation to the Access Bd
> to change the definition of E&IT to include medical devices?
> And if medical devices are considered E&IT, what about HVAC?
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> David Poehlman
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:42 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front.
> and
>
> are all computers equipped with a screen reader?
>
> On Mar 28, 2007, at 4:55 PM, Deborah Buck wrote:
>
> So on the low end of this - all digital ear thermometers that
> are purchased for use at Walter Reed Hospital as a federal
> facility would have to be talking digital thermometers and on
> the other end all spectographs or other devices that measure
> light, sound, masses, etc. would have to be accessible?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> David Poehlman
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:39 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front.
> and
>
> I agree with this. It might be prudent to flesh this out
> into a category in order to keep it in play. If cell phones
> and pagers can be inccludeed, digital medical devices and
> point of ssale devices certainly can.
>
> On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:19 AM, Debbie Cook wrote:
>
> 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