Thread Subject: Re: teitac-subparta Digest, Vol 9, Issue 16

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Jun 05 2007 10:55 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: teitac-subparta Digest, Vol 9, Issue 16"
• Previous message in thread: Tom Brett: "Re: teitac-subparta Digest, Vol 9, Issue 16"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Actually, (and I checked with the lawyers to confirm) 508 has the right of
private action. So any employee can sue their agency in court for not
complying with 508.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Tom Brett
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 3:58 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] teitac-subparta Digest, Vol 9, Issue 16
>
> Yes and no...
>
> An agency is required by the FAR to comply with 508. There
> are legal penalties if the agency does not. An agency should
> follow 508 when they deploy or be subject to political
> embarrassment. An agency can implement in a non compliant
> manner. They must only have such an implementation when they
> are challenged under 504.
>
> Tom Brett
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 4:25 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] teitac-subparta Digest, Vol 9, Issue 16
>
> Agree.
>
> The 508 standards apply to what the agencies do - not just
> what they procure.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of Baker,
> > Robert C.
> > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:01 PM
> > To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] teitac-subparta Digest, Vol
> 9, Issue 16
> >
> > Diana wrote:
> >
> > > 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?
> > >
> >
> > Robert Baker's Response,
> > The definition is getting better - but once again I would
> re-iterate
> > that I believe this spells out a responsibility to the agencies for
> > implementing Section 508, as opposed to something that
> should go into
> > a solicitation. This has a lot to do with how technology is
> > implemented - not just what technology is purchased.
> >
> >

• Next message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: teitac-subparta Digest, Vol 9, Issue 16"
• Previous message in Thread: Tom Brett: "Re: teitac-subparta Digest, Vol 9, Issue 16"