Thread Subject: Re: 1-2 A NOTE

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: Diane Golden
Date: Thu, Oct 25 2007 5:25 PM

Just finished a day long meeting with IT access people from multiple states reviewing the draft standards and the unanimous opinion was that agency requirements did not belong in "technical requirements" to be applied to EIT products/services. That included 1.2-A, 1.2-B, 5-A, 5-F (1) & (3), and 7.2-A. These might all be adopted as agency policies (perhaps with much more specificity applicable to implementation in that agency), but not as EIT technical standards.

Diane Golden - NASCIO


----- Original Message ----
From: Peter Korn < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: TEITAC Committee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 10:02:18 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] 1-2 A NOTE


Hi Gregg,

I would be interested in hearing Terry Weaver's comments on this (which
we won't get on this particular mailing list). In practice today,
industry is asked to say "supports" for all technical provisions.
Clearly we can't say that for things that must occur at the agency site
as part of agency policy. Perhaps some few industry contractors may be
invited to do some of these things in specific cases; but as these
provisions clearly don't belong in a VPAT for all products, it makes a
lot of sense to separate them out clearly from the rest of the technical
provisions.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> Hi Andi
>
> I think all of the provisions are about agency responsibilities. The
> agency language was added to a few specific ones at the request of industry
> to indicate particular responsibilities that were important but that
> companies couldn't be held responsible for. In some cases there were two
> tightly connected provisions that showed which part might be asked for in a
> purchase and which parts would have to be up to the agency after delivery
> (unless they contracted for that service in which chase the agency would be
> responsible for seeing that the contractor did it). So even the 'agency'
> provisions might apply to a contractor delivering services to the
> government.
>
> Robert, Terry and many others pointed out that more and more the government
> isn't buying products themselves but products wrapped in setup and maintance
> services. Or more accurately, the 'service of seeing that products are
> present in the government for the gov employees to use'. The products
> don't actually necessarily ever become the governments.
>
> So I think that was the rationale for putting them in as technical regs.
> - all the provisions are for the agency
> - that part may be purchased just like the rest.
>
>
> Thoughts?
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-committee-
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Andi Snow-Weaver
>> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 7:11 PM
>> To: TEITAC Committee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] 1-2 A NOTE
>>
>> I think provisions that describe agency responsibilities should be
>> separated from the technical provisions.
>>
>> Andi
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Baker, Robert
>> C."
>> <Robert.C.Baker@s To
>> sa.gov> "TEITAC Committee"
>> Sent by: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> teitac-committee- cc
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> ac.org Subject
>> Re: [teitac-committee] 1-2 A NOTE
>>
>> 10/23/2007 12:13
>> PM
>>
>>
>> Please respond to
>> TEITAC Committee
>> <teitac-committee
>> @list.teitac.org>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Peter wrote
>>
>> "* Products procured must be capable of being configured to be
>> accessible to and usable by people with disabilities while
>> simultaneously meeting the product specifications in the RFP"
>>
>> How about "Products procured must be capable of being configured to be
>> accessible to and usable by people with disabilities while
>> simultaneously meeting the agency's product requirements"
>>
>>

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