Thread Subject: Re: Comparable Access

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 12:15 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC: "Re: Comparable Access"
• Previous message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Comparable Access"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Looks good on quick read.

Nice job.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:45 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back
> into a definition and separating timely and efficient.
>
> Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access Comparable
> access means that individuals with disabilities have access
> to and use of information and data that is timely, accurate,
> complete and efficient when compared to that available to
> individuals without disabilities. Timely access ensures that
> individuals with disabilities have information and data
> available to them at the same time as individuals without
> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
> information and data reflects the intended meaning especially
> when converted into another form or media. Efficiency of
> 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.
>
> Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns
> about how this would be used or not used in solicitations?
>
> Diane
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
> Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> 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: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC: "Re: Comparable Access"
• Previous message in Thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Comparable Access"