Thread Subject: Re: Subpart ADefinitions-Accessibility-ActionNeeded

From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Mon, Apr 30 2007 3:35 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Debbie Cook: "Re: Subpart ADefinitions-Accessibility-ActionNeeded"
• Previous message in thread: None
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Shouldn't the last line say "which enable people with disabilities TO HAVE
access to technology" to make it grammatically correct?

Karen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Deborah Buck" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "Subpart A Workgroup TEITAC" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A
Definitions-Accessibility-ActionNeeded


> Yes good catch Deb. Just as an FYI the Subpart A group has recommended
> that all of the definitions be reviewed again when the technical,
> functional and whatever other provisions are recommended for exactly this
> reason so they are consistent with the other parts and are not
> contradictory or have gaps.
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Debbie Cook" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 13:15:09
> To:"TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A Definitions- Accessibility-Action
> Needed
>
>
> ACCESSIBILITY
> * This will be a new term added to Subpart A Definitions:
>
> Recommended Language:
> Accessibility: For the purpose of this regulation, general accessibility
> means conformance to the technical provisions contained in this standard.
> The term, accessibility, may also be used to define a broad set of
> features
> and capabilities which enable people with disabilities access to
> technology.
>
>
> ACTION:
> Please indicate whether you can support this definition or if you think it
> should be changed- please include your suggested changes:
>
> ___ I can accept this definition.
> x___ I can accept this definition with changes. I'm recommending that the
> group consider the following changes:
>
> Must include the functional provisions. If you do not, you will
> effectively
> ensure that closed products do not have to comply since there are not
> specific technical standards that apply to them. If we end up with some,
> this isn't an issue specific to closed, but the functional standards are
> still available for equivalent facilitation so must be included in this
> definition.
>
>

• Next message in Thread: Debbie Cook: "Re: Subpart ADefinitions-Accessibility-ActionNeeded"
• Previous message in Thread: None