Thread Subject: Re: Requirements for telephone amplification

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: Jagbell
Date: Wed, Nov 08 2006 6:15 AM

Good Morning Everyone-

Shouldn't the addition of assistive technology be the last resort and
not the first resort? If OPM doesn't insist that the technology is
embedded than who will? The government should be setting the
standard and not following the path of least resistance.

Since I am an attorney, my understanding of Section 255 is that the
Guidelines require the manufacturers to include the access if it is
readily achievable. Just because a manufacturer says it cannot
include it is not the end of the story, they must provide
documentation. We should not allow manufacturers to get off the hook
so easily.

Also as far as the screen reader technology, I think that technology
could benefit many people especially as the population starts aging.
Why are we requiring people to self-identify? Wasn't the point of
Section 255 and Section 508 to stop people to having to self-
identify? Am I missing something??

Best,

Janice Schacter






On Nov 8, 2006, at 6:04 AM, Brett, Thomas F wrote:

> >I am not a lawyer, either, so pardon my ignorance. DGiven the
> intent of >508, does "specific accessibility-related software or
> the attachment of an >assistive technology device" pertain only if
> direct access is not embedded in >the product? So, would a
> purchaser first try to identify a phone that is HAC >or a copier
> with text to speech, for example, but lacking that as an option
> >then only need to provide the accessibility software or hardware
> on an as >needed basis by the individual user?
>
> This is my understanding of the law. The policy that I have
> followed for the past 5 years is that as long as the equipment/
> software/product is capable of being used with assistive
> technology, that equipment/software/product meets the applicable
> Section 508 Standards.
>
> Using screen reader technology as an example, it would cost
> approximately $1,000 to outfit every workstation with this
> technology. To insure that this technology will work would require
> that the RAM be increased and that every user be granted admin
> rights to their PC. The vast majority of the workstation users
> would never access that technology.
>
> Tom Brett
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = on behalf of
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Sent: Wed 11/8/2006 3:39 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Requirements for telephone amplification
>
> I am not a lawyer, either, so pardon my ignorance. DGiven the
> intent of 508, does "specific accessibility-related software or the
> attachment of an assistive technology device" pertain only if
> direct access is not embedded in the product? So, would a
> purchaser first try to identify a phone that is HAC or a copier
> with text to speech, for example, but lacking that as an option
> then only need to provide the accessibility software or hardware on
> an as needed basis by the individual user?
>
> Susan
>

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