Thread Subject: Re: Comparable Access

From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Sun, Jun 03 2007 8:05 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: Comparable Access"
• Previous message in thread: jagbell: "Re: Comparable Access"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too often, the
information is given at a later time, when it is not as relevant, such as a
transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning while the
meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic version of something,
weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I watched this happen
time and again when I worked in the government.

Karen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


> Timely is included to make sure that information and access is provided on
> a
> timely basis. That is, if others have access to information or devices
> now
> - then people with disabilities should have access now.
>
> I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
>
> However having efficient access is also important.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> David Poehlman
>> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
>> function. We need to find a better word. This has more to
>> do with efficiency than timeleness.
>> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this message I
>> quote below that I don't understand.
>>
>> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>> />"
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
>> discussion at the
>> plenary meeting. The following is the current version of
>> that section.
>>
>> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>> />
>>
>> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
>> access to and use of
>> information and data that is comparable to that available to
>> individuals
>> without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that individuals with
>> disabilities have access that is timely, accurate and
>> complete. Timely
>> access includes consideration of the speed with which a person with a
>> disability can use electronic and information technology to access
>> information or perform a task as compared to an individual without
>> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
>> information and
>> data reflects the intended meaning especially when converted
>> into another
>> form or media. "
>>
>>
>>
>> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
>> expressed at
>> how this would (or would not) be used in solicitations. I think the
>> perception of the agency procurement people is that this
>> would NOT be used
>> in a solicitation, but used internally by agency staff to
>> evaluate if they
>> are meeting the statute requirements in delivery of access to
>> employees and
>> the public. One option that might help address this would
>> be to include
>> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
>> application) as that is
>> where the reference to having "access to and use of
>> information and data
>> that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
>>
>>
>>
>> Diane Golden
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>> Baker, Robert
>> C.
>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>>
>> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed comparable access
>> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
>> appropriate to
>> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
>> this phrase is
>> very unclear.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robert
>>

• Next message in Thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: Comparable Access"
• Previous message in Thread: jagbell: "Re: Comparable Access"