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: terry.weaver@gsa.gov
Date: Tue, May 29 2007 9:20 AM

While not an outside list, the Department of Defense's web site for the
Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) includes information on
lots of AT devices and some pretty good language as to their utility.
Could we consider referencing this site as an example of what AT might be,
but not limited to, defined as?

http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm




"jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
05/29/2007 10:21 AM
Please respond to
"TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


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

Subject
Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions






An outside list is okay if it is controlling. I think we need to rely on
the consumers for this issue. The bottom line is that the current
methodology is not working so we need to rethink how to approach this.

Best,

Janice
On May 29, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Jessica M. Brodey wrote:

I think Andrew, Tom, and Gregg all have valid points. First, captioning
is a means of providing access through technology, but it is not
necessarily assistive technology. Second, creating a list can be
dangerous – there is the risk of excluding technologies (which then may
not be provided upon request because they are not on the list), a list
quickly becomes outdated, and it could potentially stifle innovation. If
some people feel that a list is critical, perhaps we can ask the Access
Board to publish a non-normative list outside the regulations.

Jessica Brodey


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom Brett
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 2:56 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

The concern I would have is that by specifying particular types of
assistive technology would be that you will limit future innovation. The
government could read that all I need is to provide captions and then new
technology comes out that provides seamless ASL

Tom Brett


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 9:43 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

The language "such as but not limited to" is critical but it is also
critical that the items are listed in alphabetical order so that one item
is not more important than another.

The reason we need to list is that no one outside maybe a 100 people :)
understands what assistive technology is.:) In the past few week, I have
been asked countless times, "is there a list in the law that I can refer
to". When I explain that the language is meant to be tailored to the
individual, the person who is supposed to implement the access is
exasperated. While this has been in the museum setting, it has also been
in the National Park setting. It sounds wonderful in theory but in
reality, no one understands generalities. Therefore nothing gets done
because no one has time to do the research or if it does get done, the
information gathered is based on what vendors want to sell.:)

On a personal note, years ago, the Department of Education did not want to
provide a service that was clearly needed and required . They told me
that they were not required to provide it. When I showed then the service
was listed in the legislation with "such as but not limited to" language,
the service was provided. :) If this list was not provided, I would have
had to sue them. People who have disabilities can make suing people a
full-time job. :) This is not a good option. Clarity is.

The way the law is set-up now is clearly not working. It is time for a
change and the use of the language"such as but not limited to" with
examples listed in alphabetical order can be inserted and used as a guide
and starting point for appropriate access. We as a group need to remember
that the goal here is to not only assist the procurement officers but also
the end user who can point to legal language to obtain what they need when
there may be an artificial barrier (a boss :) ) who is preventing the
person from obtaining the appropriate access they need to have appropriate
access.

Enjoy the rest of the weekend!

Best,

Janice






On May 25, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

Concur.

Also we don't want to start listing AT. Where do you stop. Who feels
left out. Dangerous way to define.



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



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)
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.at.mo.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: = 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 = ] 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 = ] 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/> FAX 608/262-8848
DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
If Attachement is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/

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