Thread Subject: Re: Please Read: Recap of Dec 13 call

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: Peter Korn
Date: Thu, Dec 20 2007 1:45 PM

Hi Gregg,

Yes it is, thanks.

May I invite you to propose it to the TEITAC alias?


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.


> Is this easier to read and understand?
>
> Note: This provision is not intended to prevent a product feature that would
> allow the user to tie product functions together (e.g. turning one on would
> turn another off) so long as turning on an accessibility feature did not
> turn off other product functions by default.
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 1:39 PM
>> To: TEITAC Task Force
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-tf] Please Read: Recap of Dec 13 call
>>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> Here is a first draft attempt at a note for Section D provision 2-C:
>>
>> Note: this provision is not intended to prevent product
>> functions from being tied together; turning one on can turn
>> another off so long as this can be controlled by user option,
>> and by default turning on an accessibility feature shall not
>> turn off other product functions.
>>
>>
>> If there aren't further comments on this, I'll forward this
>> on to the larger TEITAC alias.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Peter Korn
>> Accessibility Architect,
>> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>>
>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> First. let me thank you for being able to join the Task
>> Force a little
>>> late in the place of Mary Beth who is dealing with some
>> family matters
>>> of great urgency.
>>>
>>> Second, at the risk of plowing already treated ground from the last
>>> meeting, in reviewing the below, i had a question:
>>>
>>> Under the 3 - a - first bullet - 2) it states "and 2)
>> accessibility
>>> features should not disable any function." My question is,
>>> hypothetically, if a device has a voice navigation function
>> and thereby
>>> negates the need for a visual display, why not let the
>> device disable
>>> the display function to save battery life and perhaps
>> device cycles.
>>> Kind of a poor example but should illustrate the need for
>> flexibility
>>> in shutting off a function that is not needed, to keep the
>> device speed
>>> and battery life optimal for the user.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:48 PM, BLACKLER, ELLEN (ATTSI) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Team - Below (and attached) is the recap of the Dec 13
>> call. Please
>>>> review before the Dec 20^th call.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Recap of December 13 Task Force Call*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *_ _*
>>>>
>>>> 1. The Task Force discussed the service and equipment
>> that is covered
>>>> by the FCC's Section 255 rules, and reached a general
>> understanding on
>>>> what is covered today. In addition, the Task Force agreed
>> that it was
>>>> not necessary for its work to identify the communications products
>>>> that are covered or not with great precision. Instead, the Task
>>>> Force agreed that if we could identify some examples of products
>>>> covered by Section 255 for which the technical standards would be
>>>> relevant that would be enough for the group to evaluate how the
>>>> standard should be treated for Section 255.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. General Provisions regarding Purpose and Application of the
>>>> technical standards.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> a. The Task Force agreed to recommend to the
>> TEITAC the
>>>> inclusion of the language of the current November 27 EWG draft in
>>>> /Section 1194.1 Purpose, /describing the 255 related
>> purpose of the
>>>> guidelines. This language closely tracks the current
>> rules regarding
>>>> the coverage of the section 255 rules and gives context to
>> the rest of
>>>> the draft and clarifies the difference in scope between
>> section 508
>>>> (procurement) and section 255 guidelines (design and manufacture).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> b. The Task Force agreed to recommend to the TEITAC the
>> following in
>>>> /Section 1194.2 Application:/
>>>>
>>>> . Add a subheading, "Section 508"/,/ at the
>> beginning of this
>>>> section to denote the current provisions are for Section
>> 508 purposes.
>>>> . Add a second section, "Section 255", followed by the
>>>> language currently entitled Version 4 and Version 5. This
>> language is
>>>> from the current 255 guidelines modified to include interconnected
>>>> VOIP. The Application section would then have two
>> subsections, one
>>>> generally describing the obligations under section 508 and
>> the other
>>>> generally describing the obligations under 255.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. Technical Provisions
>>>>
>>>> / /
>>>>
>>>> a./ Accessibility Configuration/ (previously in 1.2 A of General
>>>> Technical Requirements, now in Subpart D, 5.2.3 2-C.)
>>>>
>>>> / /
>>>>
>>>> . The Task Force noted that the provision changed
>> materially
>>>> between the October 26 draft and the November 27 draft when it was
>>>> moved. The October language placed an affirmative obligation on
>>>> agencies to activate features and configure products to be
>> accessible.
>>>> The November draft 26 requires 2 things: 1) "Products
>> procured must
>>>> be capable of being configured to be accessible to and usable by
>>>> people with disabilities while simultaneously meeting the products
>>>> function."; and 2) accessibility features should not disable any
>>>> function.
>>>>
>>>> . _Language in November draft._ The Task Force
>> recommends to
>>>> the TEITAC that the requirements in the November draft should be
>>>> included in the 255 guidelines and should be moved into
>> the "General
>>>> Technical Requirements" section modified as follows:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Products procured must be capable of being configured to be
>>>> accessible to [and usable by] people with disabilities while
>>>> simultaneously meeting the product's function. The accessibility
>>>> features should not disable any functions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _Note: For purposes of Section 255, "products" are the
>>>> telecommunications equipment, voicemail and interactive menu
>>>> equipment, interconnected VOIP equipment and CPE covered
>> by the FCC's
>>>> rules implementing section 255."_
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> o "usable to" is bracketed, because the Task Force
>> wanted the
>>>> TEITAC to discuss the inclusion of usable, as defined in
>> the November
>>>> draft, in provisions that would apply to Section 508 as well as
>>>> Section 255. The Task Force would like the TEITAC to
>> discuss whether
>>>> to leave usable to in, take it out or keep usable to for
>> section 255 only.
>>>> / /
>>>>
>>>> . _October draft language_. The Task Force also recommends
>>>> that the agency obligation in the October draft should be
>> reinstated
>>>> and included in the "Implementation, Operation and Maintenance"
>>>> Section modified as follows.
>>>>
>>>> _ _
>>>>
>>>> "In complying with this subpart, each [agency _or entity
>> covered by
>>>> section 255_] must activate accessibility features and configure
>>>> products so that they are accessible to and usable by people with
>>>> disabilities.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _Note: For section 508 the agency would have the obligation. For
>>>> section 255 it is the service provider or manufacturer covered by
>>>> section 255._"
>>>>
>>>> / /
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <Recap of December 13 Task Force Call.doc>
>>>>

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