Thread Subject: Re: FW: 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: jagbell
Date: Tue, May 29 2007 11:35 AM

I think that would be a fabulous idea. This way there would be one
list.

Janice
On May 29, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Schomburg, Paul wrote:

> Folks: Alternatively, could the Access Board recommend that each
> agency compile its own list of what AT it uses? If this is public
> information it could be used to compile a government-wide list of
> AT used by the Federal Government. Reference to each agency’s list
> could be included as part of the market research requirements that
> each agency is responsible to conduct.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Paul
>
>
> Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
> Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:17 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Cc: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; teitac-subparta-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
>
>
> 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:teitac-
> = 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:teitac-
> = 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:teitac-
> = 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:teitac-
> = 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:teitac-
> = 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:teitac-
> = 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