Thread Subject: Re: video support language - revised language

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: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Mon, Oct 01 2007 2:55 PM

Yes, this was intended to replace 5-F. Perhaps an advisory note would do
the trick. I will work on it and get back to everyone tomorrow.

Karen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Korn" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:49 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] video support language - revised language


Hi Karen,

It would be good to see the full text, in context, within its section of
the TEITAC draft. Is the text you wrote intended to replace the entire
text of 5-F "Video Support" at
http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Sept_14#5-F_-_Video_Support ? If so,
then we have the problem I cited.

I'm sorry, I'm fresh out of suggestions (I gave at the office).


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> Peter
>
> No it is not the intent of this section - this concern was raised during
> the
> call and I tried to re-phrase it in a way that does not require every
> governmental desk to have video capability. Consumers understand that
> there will only be a certain number of individuals needing such video
> communication. The intent is to make sure that the government ALLOWS
> individuals to have video communication where they need it. Perhaps the
> section needs a bit of additional amending if this is what you got out of
> it
> when you read it. Any suggestions?
>
> Karen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Peter Korn" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Monday, October 01, 2007 3:30 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] video support language - revised language
>
>
> Hi Karen,
>
> I'm sorry I wasn't on the call. I imagine there is more context to the
> text below - that it is part of a specific provision that scopes where
> it applies. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
>
> In any case, to my question: are you saying with this text below that
> every agency must provide for real-time-video communications for all
> employees? I don't believe we today require that the federal government
> provide every employee with a phone at their desk (though that is
> commonly done), or a computer, or.. But taken out of context, this text
> seems to suggest that every employee must have access to real-time-video
> communication, and if there are security concerns, that this be done on
> a private network to a private terminal.
>
> Is that the intent of your language?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
> P.S. I do appreciate
>
>
>> Here is what I think we agreed on. However, it does not include
>> mention of H.323.
>>
>> Video Support
>>
>> 1. Each agency must ensure the ability of individuals to have
>> communication access via point to point real time video
>> communications and video relay services for incoming and
>> outgoing calls.
>> 2. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit
>> video communications in real time between and among individuals
>> must support interoperability to permit communication between
>> and among users of terminals from different manufacturers and
>> service providers.
>> 3. Communication products or systems that are used to transmit
>> video communications in real time between and among individuals
>> must provide an external flashing system that is capable of
>> alerting users of incoming calls.
>> 4. At a minimum, video communications must support 15 frames per
>> second, QCIF resolution, and a latency of less than 400
>> milliseconds, in order to provide sufficient quality and fluency
>> that will support real time video communication in which one or
>> more parties are using sign language or is talking in the picture.
>> 5. Where security concerns are present, this subpart remains in
>> effect, but may be achieved by measures that prevent an
>> individual’s video communications from intermingling with
>> packets of the general government network, for example, through
>> the installation of a separate line to an isolated
>> communications terminal.
>>
>> Advisory note: The requirement to permit video communications in real
>> time includes the ability to send and receive video mail, much in the
>> same way that voice telephone users are able to send and receive voice
>> mail.
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>

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