Thread Subject: Re: 1194.3 (f) Summary
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.
Date: Wed, Jun 20 2007 4:25 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Michele Budris: "Re: 1194.3 (f) Summary"
- Previous message in thread: Diane Golden: "Re: 1194.3 (f) Summary"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Please note my new address is = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = .
On Jun 20, 2007, at 3:39 PM, Deborah Buck wrote:
> While I consider occasional monitoring and repair as part of the
> task I would prefer to see it spelled out to reduce individual
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2007 1:30 PM
> To: TEITAC SubPart A listserv (E-mail)
> Subject: [teitac-subparta] 1194.3 (f) Summary
> I've started a new message on this topic to summarize and clarify
> First, there is no title such as "back office exception" so there
> is no need
> to remame a title that doesn't exist in the regs. The section is
> "Execptions" and this subsection is (f). The words "back office"
> are not in
> the current regs.
> The proposed revision to existing language that was sent out is
> (new in
> CAPS) --
> "Products THAT ARE located in AND WHOSE OPERATIONS CAN ONLY BE
> EXECUTED FROM
> spaces frequented only by service personnel for maintenance,
> repair, or
> occasional monitoring of equipment are not required to comply with
> Gregg has now proposed different language which reads --
> "Products whose user interface is provided remotely, and that only
> interface elements on them that are used for maintenance do not
> need to meet
> the requirements in this part as long as their remote user
> interface meets
> the requirements in this part."
> This proposal appears substantially different in that it adds a
> for a remote user interface that conforms to all the access
> standards and
> only allows the exception to apply to "maintenance" not "repair or
> occasional monitoring".
> Do we have two suggestions now or can we agree on one?