Thread Subject: Re: Comparable Access

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 11:45 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

Indeed.

I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for 'content' and for
'devices'

We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language



Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> David Poehlman
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> I agree with everything said about this but the note below
> does not express this clearly ehough and comparable access is
> a term oft used when descriing side by side modalities not
> alternate formats?
> "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
>
> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
> able to use the equipment in a comparable way.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
> 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: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: Comparable Access"
• Previous message in Thread: jagbell: "Re: Comparable Access"