Thread Subject: Re: Comparable Access

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: Deborah Buck
Date: Wed, Jun 06 2007 7:00 AM

We do need to remember the point of the law and the regs. 508 is not
intended as the statute to address all of the needs of individuals with
disabilities. 508 has historically been a baseline to ensure that the
infrastructure exists to provide E&IT accessibility for stand alone products
and ensure interoperability with an individual's AT. Individuals considered
a person with a disability have rights under 504 and the ADA to request a
reasonable accommodation, which can include the provision of AT to enable
them to do their job or to ensure participation or public access to the
programs operated by the federal agency. The individual choice of AT is
considered as part of the accommodation process, however as consistent with
most federal laws related to accommodations and access there is nothing that
requires the agency to acquire the "best" but rather they are required to
accommodate in a reasonable or appropriate manner. 508 is not meant to
replace or diminish the rights accorded to people with disabilities under
the provisions accorded to people under the ADA or 504.


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 8:26 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access

Why not? Just because it hasn't doesn't mean it shouldn't.:)



On Jun 6, 2007, at 8:17 AM, David Poehlman wrote:

> Stigmatism is not a barrier to *access*. I use a talking computer.
> would it
> be more appropriate for me to have someone whispering in my ear?
> Suppose it
> were the only alternative and it was deemed as good or superior to
> a talking
> computer? I agree this is an issue, it though does not bear on
> whether
> something is accessible.
>
> Someone's choice is a willfull exercise and must not be confused
> with real
> barriers to accessibility such as no access at all choice
> notwithstanding.
> What in the law requires a providor to choose something which is not
> stigmatic?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 9:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> I disagree. Why is this any different from any other provision. The
> whole point of the regs is to assist people. Many people will not
> use anything that stigmatizes them. This is an important
> consideration and should not be dismissed lightly. Why would anyone
> want to use anything that draws attention to them when there is an
> alternative that does not.:) We need to remember the point of the
> regs. :)
>
> Janice
>
>
>
> On Jun 5, 2007, at 6:41 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>
>> It would take a change in statute or regulatory language in Section
>> 504 and/or the ADA and/or litigation history pursuant to 504/ADA to
>> add "least obstrusive" as a required part of determining
>> "reasonable accommodation" or "auxilary aid or service".
>>
>> Diane
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Tom Brett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee <teitac-
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2007 9:57:08 AM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> The Government would be required to purchase 2 types of AT.
>> Inasmuch as I
>> support the less intrusive wording I don't see how the government
>> can be
>> forced to pay for 2 different types of reasonable accommodation.
>> The person
>> with a disability has been provided with a way to participate in the
>> conference.
>>
>> Tom Brett
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:48 AM
>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> If two options are available and one is least obtrusive to the user
>> and thus
>> less stigma, that option should be used. For example, in a
>> conference room,
>> there is the option of using an induction loop or an FM system. An
>> FM system
>> requires the person with hearing loss to wear a receiver and a
>> neckloop. An
>> iduction loop requires the person to just switch their hearing aid
>> to "T".
>> Why should a person wear a device when they don't have to? This
>> happens all
>> the time because people don't understand induction loops. :)
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Janice
>> Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Poehlman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>
>> Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:24:43
>> To:TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> I'm not diagreeing necessarily, but what does "least intrusive" do?
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:45 AM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> I would just add "in the least intrusive manner.
>>
>> Janice
>> On Jun 4, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Jim Tobias wrote:
>>
>>> i think you nailed this. i agree completely with this draft.
>>>
>>> ***
>>> Jim Tobias
>>> Inclusive Technologies
>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
>>> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
>>> skype jimtobias
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Diane Golden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:45 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
>>>>>>>

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University