Thread Subject: Re: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

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: James Elekes
Date: Fri, May 25 2007 8:55 PM

Hmmm. Do you consider the receiver used for Audio
Description AT? As a totally blind individual,
I've always considered the complete package AT
After all, what good is the caption decoder or
the AD receiver without the essential product it
delivers? My response has always been (but, I
could be wrong), it's just another piece of hardware.

Regards, Jim

James J. Elekes, M.Ed, MPA/CPM
Presidential Appointee/Public Member and
Chairman, Telecommunications, Electronic/Information Technologies Committee
United States Access Board

At 02:49 PM 5/25/2007, you wrote:
>Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
> boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C79F05.D3FBC859"
>
>I don't agree that equivalents such as audio
>description or captioning are assistive
>technology. An argument could be made that a
>caption decoder is AT, but not the captions.
>AWK
>
>
>----------
>From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
>Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:09 PM
>To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>I have added my additions below in red. Please
>note, my suggestions are in alphabetical order. :)
>
>
>On May 25, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>
>>The following is what I have drafted based on
>>the feedback at the meeting. New language is in CAPS.
>>Diane
>>
>>
>>Assistive Technology means any item, piece of
>>equipment, or system, whether acquired
>>commercially, modified, or customized, that is
>>commonly used to increase, maintain, or improve
>>functional capabilities of individuals with
>>disabilities. AS USED IN THIS PART, THE TERM
>>INCLUDES TRADITIONAL ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY
>>HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ALONG WITH VIRTUAL
>>ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY DELIVERED AS A WEB SERVICE
>>AND INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTS INTO A SYSTEM THAT
>>PROVIDES ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS
>>ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES TO
>>ACCESS ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
>>such as but not limited to assistive listening
>>devices, audio description, captioning.
>>
>>
>>Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
>>Missouri Assistive Technology
>>816/350-5280 (direct voice)
>><mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>www.at.mo.gov
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>[<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On
>>Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
>>Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:22 PM
>>To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>>Generally notes that are immediately adjacent a
>>definition in a standard cannot change the
>>meaning in the standard but can explain what it
>>already says. So they don't have the same
>>effect as the definition ? but since they are
>>explaining what it says ? the definition would
>>convey their weight. However ? for the
>>regulations it may be that any notes would end
>>up back in the front matter rather than with
>>the definition. In that case we may want to /
>>need to embed the info in the definition somehow. Like
>>
>>Definition
>>
>>Assistive technology: Assistive technology
>>means ?? devices, systems (including web
>>services and integrated products that deliver
>>assistive services), yada yada yada.
>>
>>
>>Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>>Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>
>>----------
>>From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>[<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>>On Behalf Of Jessica M. Brodey
>>Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:56 AM
>>To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>>This revised definition addresses ATIA?s
>>concerns stated yesterday during the Subpart A
>>report. We would support adopting this. One
>>question ? should Note 1 and Note 2 be treated
>>as subsections and included in the regulation
>>to give it the same force as the definition?
>>
>>Jessica
>>
>>
>>----------
>>From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>[<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>>On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
>>Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:11 PM
>>To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>>A way to meet the concerns that led to
>>including the term ?SERVICE? and ?IN ACCESSING E&IT?
>>
>>(without creating the problems and grief that
>>will come from trying to change the definition of AT)
>>
>> might be to keep definition but add notes
>> that would be included with the definition .
>>
>>like this:
>>
>>Definition
>>
>>Assistive technology: Assistive technology
>>means?etc etc etc (standard definition)
>>
>>Note 1: Virtual Assistive technology delivered
>>as a web service, and integration of different
>>products into a system that provides assistive
>>functions to people with disabilities, are two
>>examples of things that are included in the term ?systems? in this definition.
>>
>>Note 2: Within this Part, Assistive Technology
>>means Assistive technology used in accessing E&IT.
>>
>>
>>Gregg
>>
>>------------------------
>>
>>Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>>Director - Trace R & D Center
>>University of Wisconsin-Madison
>><<http://trace.wisc.edu/>http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
>>
>>DSS Player at <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b>http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>>
>>If Attachement is a mail.dat try
>><http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>>
>>

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