Thread Subject: Re: Comparable Access

From: Deborah Buck
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 11:25 AM

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

The concept of efficiency and productivity was the crux of the initial
discussion on comparable access. I believe that through discussions there
was a recognition that other factors, such as timeliness, contributes to
efficiency, but the concept of timeliness also needs to stand alone as an
additional consideration. I don't believe that we are saying it is an
either - or, but rather both concepts need to be included.

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:00 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access

I think efficient is another necessary dimension. It means that the
method required by the user must be productive, not arduous. For
example, an application that is not screen reader compatible may have
its own speech capability. But if that speech capability can only
speak at 30 words per minute and can only spell words not in its vocabulary,
it should not be an acceptable solution.

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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
> and is the term we should be using. it was timely, accurate,
> and complete from my recollection.
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Karen Peltz Strauss
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> 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: David Poehlman: "Re: Comparable Access"
• Previous message in Thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: Comparable Access"