Thread Subject: Re: Telecom Subcomm. Discussion: Audio Output
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: Brett, Thomas F
Date: Mon, Nov 06 2006 4:18 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: None
- Previous message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Telecom Subcomm. Discussion: Audio Output"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
The captioner was scheduled for 1 hour..2-3pm
Tom Brett,
Section 508 Coordinator
US Office of Personnel Management
Rm 6H34A
2026061206 (v)
2026062582 (tty)
Disabled does not mean Unable
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 2:57 PM
To: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Telecom Subcomm. Discussion: Audio Output
Thanks, Terry, for reminding us of this -- agencies buy voice mail
service sometimes, not the hardware and software to provide their own
voice mail service. They certainly don't build their own wireless
networks!
May I ask you (and the legal-beagles also on this list) 2 questions? At
the time that the 508 Standards were being drafted, it might not have
been clear that Section 255 enforcement would as sparse as it has been,
and that 508 was going to be a more effective method of motivating
improvements in accessibility. So perhaps the assumption was, let's not
raise the same issues in 508 that have been settled in 255 (with the
exception of the level of phone amplification.)
1. Could the 508 Standards have incorporated the 255 Guidelines
explicitly, and added the 1194.23 provisions? That is, is it an
acceptable practice in the regulatory world to repeat regulations found
elsewhere, or at least to refer to them?
2. Would this have been an effective way to make sure that 508
compliance efforts met all the relevant accessibility needs? That is,
instead of having to train procurement folks on 1194.23 and hope that
they also knew about and cared about 255, if both of those sets of
provisions were incorporated in 1194.23, would it have "worked", or
would the stylistic and structural differences between 255 and 508 been
too confusing?
***********
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
skype jimtobias
www.inclusive.com
- Next message in Thread: None
- Previous message in Thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: Telecom Subcomm. Discussion: Audio Output"
WebAIM is an initiative of:
