Thread Subject: Re: E&IT determination

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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Sep 18 2007 1:05 PM

Here is another one.



If a lab computer is E&IT - would it still be E&IT if I attached it to the
front of a refrigerator? Currently our language says no. I think we
need to think about this.



On the other hand we don't want the computer chip in the refrigerator that
controls the temperature to get classified as E&IT.



Maybe something like



If it is the primary function or if it would be functioning E&IT if detached
or if it stood alone..



Don't know. Tough one to create criterion that does not provide a large
loophole or an overbroad net.




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2007 8:48 AM
To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] E&IT determination

All:





At the plenary a discussion took place about how to identify what is and
isn't E&IT. It was agreed that we can't change the definition for E&IT as it
is based upon Klinger-cohen, and the current language may not be as
sufficient to provide the framework for people to use when making this
determination.



I think if we can define some framework around this it would be an excellent
item to add as supplementary information for use in the next phases of this
process.



Some questions raised have been:



Is medical equipment E&IT? (David Baquis).



Are baggage scanners E&IT? (me). Why or why not.



Is mail handling equipment E&IT? Why or why not.



Is a portable "stud finder" E&It?



Is a security monitor E&It? (think video surveillance).



I tend to look at this on the more relaxed side of things. E&IT may be
included in some much more complicated, and often mechanically-based
mechanisms, but is not the principle function of it. My example would be
mail handling equipment. I'm sure that, for example, a mail handling system
should be keyboard operable if it is operated from a workstation of some
type, but I just don't think this kind of system should be included.



Terry had some process to this determination that asked if an item was E&IT
and then asked about technical provisions applicability. Is this the right
sequence? For items that have no technical provisions applicable, does that
lead to high degree of "not being E&IT)?



Anyway, some starting points.



Allen Hoffman -- DHS Office on Accessible Systems & Technology

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