Thread Subject: Re: teitac-general Digest, Vol 1, Issue 11

From: Baquis David
Date: Mon, Oct 30 2006 10:40 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: None
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Here is a clip from Doug Wakefield's response last week regarding the
Subpart C (f) issue:

"In five of the six parts of Subpart c, we said basically either build
access in to the product for a specific disability or provide support
for assistive technology. However, in (f) we did not ad support for AT.

(f) At least one mode of operation and information retrieval that
does
not require fine motor control or simultaneous actions and that is
operable with
limited reach and strength shall be provided.

The reasoning behind this is as follows: This requirement is addressing
the multitude of mechanical controls that may be on a product such as,
latches for opening the covers on laptops, on/off switches on all e&it,
paper tray releases, release levers or buttons on docking stations,
buttons for opening drive doors and so on. The list is endless. This
provission is requiring that a product's mechanical controls must meet
this provision "out of the box." While there is assistive technology
available for people who can't use a mouse or keyboard, it is impossible
to design technology that could provide access to all the various ways
that mechanical controls can be designed. therefore, the burden to make
these controls accessible to people with limited motor function lies
with the manufacturer.

I hope this makes clearer the intent of this requirement."

David Baquis
Accessibility Specialist
U.S. Access Board
1331 F Street, NW, #1000
Washington, DC 20004
800-USA-ABLE; (202) 272-0013 (voice)
www.access-board.gov; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = "Leading the way to
excellence in accessibility"


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 14:53:17 -0400
From: "Baquis David " < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] Functional Performance Agenda Item
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Message-ID:

< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

With regard to Subpart C, ?1194.31 (f):


The failure to reference AT was not an oversight, but was intentional.
Doug Wakefield used to explain this in his "508 back to basics
workshops", so I suggest that you ask him about it. Without posting his
contact information, you can reach him through Integration Technologies
Group, Inc., where he now works.

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: None