Thread Subject: Re: Comparable Access

From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 1:25 PM

• 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: Jim Tobias: "Re: Comparable Access"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

I think this language works very well.

Karen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:45 PM
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: David Poehlman: "Re: Comparable Access"
• Previous message in Thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Comparable Access"