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: David Poehlman
Date: Wed, May 30 2007 4:35 AM

I think most cases are demonstrable?

----- Original Message -----
From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions


Again, that sounds great in theory but what do you do when someone
else says, no its not? :)





On May 29, 2007, at 1:53 PM, David Poehlman wrote:

> Assistive technology includes techniques so why would captioning
> and audio
> description not be AT? I think if we describe its functionality
> which will
> remain forever, we don't need a list?
>
> Asistive technology provides the means to access and or interact with
> information technology which permit those who cannot hear, see,
> manipulate...?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
> We need to be stronger than consideration. :) I am not sure how many
> people on the committee use AT but as you all know, our daughter
> does. The practical aspects are a nightmare. There are very few
> places in this country that have appropriate access and it is because
> no one understands what it means. I am happy to provide names and
> numbers of people who have requested this. We need to stop
> exacerbating the problem and come up with a solution that really
> works. :) It is not working at all which is why I am pushing so
> hard. A person with a disability is at the mercy of whoever is in
> charge whether it is a procurement person or an access person. No
> one's life should be at someone else's mercy. It is time for a
> change.:)
>
>
> On May 29, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>
>> Here is what I have drafted as a suggestion for technical
>> assistance per
>> Access Board as related to the revised defintion of AT.
>>
>> Diane
>>
>>
>>
>> Possible Technical Assistance Information for Access Board
>> consideration-
>>
>> Reference AT resource lists such as the federal CAP listing of
>> assistive
>> technology used in accommodations (
>> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm>
>> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm) or the
>> Assistive Technology Act federally funded National Public Website on
>> Assistive Technology ( http://assistivetech.net <http://
>> assistivetech.net/>
>> ). The Access Board could also consider recommending that each
>> agency
>> compile a list of the AT typically used in that agency. If made
>> public,
>> such information could be helpful in understanding the range of
>> items used
>> by federal agencies and could prove helpful to vendors, agencies and
>> consumers.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>> Schomburg, Paul
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:57 AM
>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>> Cc: Schomburg, Paul
>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>>
>>
>> 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; 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
>> <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 = >
>> 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 = >
>> 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: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:09 PM
>> To: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = 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: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> = 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: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> = 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: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> = 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/
>>
>> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

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