Thread Subject: Re: Ball Grid Array/SurfaceMountedDeviceReworkSystems
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: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Wed, Jul 25 2007 3:55 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: William Loughborough: "Re: Ball Grid Array/SurfaceMountedDeviceReworkSystems"
- Previous message in thread: None
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
I'm going to disagree with you. The point isn't to justify why we
will never allow someone with a disability to perform the particular
job. The point is that if it is electronic & information technology
(E&IT), and it can be accessible, then it *should be accessible* by at
least meeting the minimum standards of Section 508.
By using this specific example, the machine is programmed to grind
out the board pattern automatically. What if someone else provided the
expertise for the first board and then you could perform the remaining
swap out without sight? Or the many people with partial sight that are
legally blind that could take advantage of a screen reader for the
software and makes the speed at understanding and controlling the system
closer to someone with full vision? Your statement tries to logically
group "the tool" into the entire system, hardware and software. By over
extending that logic we would never address accessibility.
As for what Doug would argue, if a air traffic control system vendor
provided accessibility commercially we should be considering them.
Section 508 already has general exceptions for commercial
non-availability. That isn't a bad thing. Also, we can't buy what
doesn't exist. However, if it is E&IT the Section 508 applies, including
documenting why any general exception applies or that the product simply
doesn't meet your business needs or it doesn't exist.
We have people with disabilities able to function in positions that
required specific abilities simply because the E&IT is accessible. Even
the software we provide in vehicles! Why shouldn't we be able to hire a
systems administrator for those systems just because he or she requires
a screen reader? It isn't just the single use, there is a whole world of
people of various abilities that can work if we do make the E&IT
Again, just because you can justify why we require specific
abilities to perform the particular job is no reason Section 508 should
Norman B. Robinson
Section 508 Coordinator
IT Governance, US Postal Service
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Rex Lint
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2007 6:07 PM
To: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] Ball Grid
I don't agree that it's the complexity that makes it not
solvable by accessibility, it's the nature of the decisions that must be
made in the feedback loop. Here, one MUST see the target and provide
inputs that guide the tools to the target. If you can't see the target,
then your use of the tool would require fundamental alteration of the
product to make it possible for you to use it for the intended function.
Doug Wakefield used a similar argument to say that air traffic
control consoles didn't have to be accessible.
Rex Lint, Consultant
Chair, Section 508 Working Group
Information Technology Ass'n of America
- Next message in Thread: William Loughborough: "Re: Ball Grid Array/SurfaceMountedDeviceReworkSystems"
- Previous message in Thread: None