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: Diane Golden
Date: Tue, May 29 2007 12:50 PM

That more global note approach works fine as a stand alone sort of
recommendation if everyone is agreeable.

Just to clarify, the definition of assistive technology in Section 508 rules
will not create any right of access to assistive technology for individuals
with disabilities. So even if an AT list is created or referenced, it does
not provide a right of access to everything on that list because the Section
508 statute doesn't require access to all available or needed AT. That
occurs under other legal mandates such as Section 504, ADA, or IDEA.

Diane
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 12:58 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions



This might work well as part of a general recommendation to the Access
Board:

"The Committee recommends that the Access Board develop or participate in
the development of
informational materials that would be useful to federal agencies and others
in the implementation
of the regulations. These resources could include:

- assistive technologies, both categories and specific models, used by
agencies and individuals
- implementation notes on the compatibility of assistive technologies and
E&IT products and services
- implementation notes on the accessibility features of E&IT products and
services
- results of Section 508 market research performed by federal agencies"

Anyone think of other information resources that could be developed and
shared?


***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias





----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
From: jagbell [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:33 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions


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: = 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;
= 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: = 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