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: Mark D. Urban
Date: Thu, Jun 07 2007 10:35 AM

Good point, Jim. Note that "comparable access" is not just a goal, it's a
legal requirement on agencies, against which complaints or litigation may be
targeted. Make it too "squishy" - i.e. too broad or flexible, and agencies
won't know whether they've met it or not until a court rules for or against
them.

Regards,



-Mark D. Urban



919-395-8513 (cell)

Chair, North Carolina Governor's Advocacy Council for Persons with
Disabilities

Keep up with the latest in worldwide accessibility at
(http://www.icdri.org/)

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 12:09 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access

Why not continue to use the word "comparable" in all the right places?

***
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: Thursday, June 07, 2007 11:37 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> It sounds like we may need to add a word like "reasonable" to
> account for the fact that even with the best EIT access and
> the best AT available, access for a person with a disability
> still may not be with exactly the same
> efficiency as that available to a non-disabled person. So perhaps
> something like --
> "Efficient access ensures that an individual with a
> disability exerts a reasonably similar amount of effort in
> using electronic and information technology to perform a task
> as compared to an individual without a disability."
>
> There may be better wording . . .
>
> Diane
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Tom Brett
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 7:33 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
>
>
> "- Timely access ensures that individuals with disabilities
> have information and data available to them at the same time
> as individuals without disabilities. "
>
> "- Efficient access ensures that an individual with a
> disability exerts the same amount of effort in using
> electronic and information technology to perform a task as
> compared to an individual without a disability."
>
> AT requires more effort to use than simply using a mouse.
> If I am looking
> for the general link for FAQ, as a person without
> disabilities I will just use the mouse to click on that link.
> A person using a screen reader will need to first determine
> where the link is either using a link list or by tabbing to
> the link for the FAQ. Either way the user of AT will be
> required to perform more keystrokes than a one who does not
> use AT. Even if the particular link is at the top of the
> page the screen reader user will need to determine that by
> executing the link list or via a tab.
>
> When comparing the user of AT to a user that does not use AT,
> what is the basis for measuring timing and efficiency? A
> user of screen reader technology will always be required to
> perform more keystrokes than a non-screen reader user.
>
> A user of screen reader technology uses a combination of 2
> keys to go back to a previous link and the space bar or enter
> key to execute the link. A person who uses a different type
> of AT, such as a screen magnifier, would not be required to
> use the key combination and could use the mouse to execute
> the previous link. A person using no AT could also use the
> mouse to execute the link.
>
> Do we need to include a statement that in the definition
> that in order to be timely and efficient the ratio between
> the user of AT and a non-user of AT can be no greater than 2 to 1?
>
>
>
>
> Tom Brett
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Baker, Robert C.
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2007 6:57 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> I propose the following modified wording for the comparable
> access provision, which separately defines "accurate and
> complete" and provides further clarity on what "efficient"
> means without using the term "speed"
>
> 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 access ensures that the information and data
> reflects the intended meaning especially when converted into
> another form or media.
> - Complete access ensures that no information or data is
> missing when accessed by assistive technology or converted
> into another form or media
> - Efficient access ensures that an individual with a
> disability exerts the same amount of effort in using
> electronic and information technology to perform a task as
> compared to an individual without a disability.
>
> Robert
>

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