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: Wed, May 30 2007 6:25 AM

It depends what your definition of comparable access is. For
example, at the National Parks, (Sorry but is is my best frame of
reference.) a Park offers captioning on the video and does not also
offer induction loops. In their mind, it is accessible but to
someone who has residual hearing, it is not the same. (If it were,
we would still have silent movies.) What happens is a standstill.

Another example, The NPS says okay instead of offering an induction
loop we will offer a portable DVD player with the sound. The fact
that it is impossible to synch the DVD player to the video appears to
be irrelevant to The Park. Is this comparable access? These are
both real examples of what is transpiring at National Parks. If
there was a list, this would be completely avoidable. The problem is
that I am forced to rely on people whose best interest is not
appropriate access or who are unable to understand what appropriate
access is. :)

There needs to be a way to have a place that I can point to that
says, it says right here what appropriate access is and you are not
providing it. :)

Janice




On May 30, 2007, at 7:21 AM, Tom Brett wrote:

>
>
> If there is AT that is available that provides comparable access I
> would say
> that the provider is being reasonable and that is what is required
> under ADA
> and 504.
>
> Can you provide an example of the type of AT.
>
> Tom Brett
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:10 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
> I must not have been clear. What if the provider says the type of AT
> the person requires is not mandated so they don't have to provide it?
>
>
>
> On May 30, 2007, at 6:34 AM, David Poehlman wrote:
>
>> 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