Thread Subject: Re: Requirements for telephone amplification
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.
Date: Wed, Nov 08 2006 9:45 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Requirements for telephone amplification"
- Previous message in thread: Brett, Thomas F: "Re: Requirements for telephone amplification"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
I have a couple of things to say on this issue:
1- Access is not determined solely by price. If it were, there would
never be access. Access should not be dependent on "the goodness" of
governmental appropriators. A New Civil Right pg. 95
2- Just as cities support rural access because that is what is
appropriate so must non-disabled access support disability access.
3- There is the assumption that accessibility only benefits the
person with the disability. That is not the case. Access for people
with disabilities benefits everyone. For example, if you are having
a heart attack, would you want to know everyone who needs to call for
an ambulance can? Also, it is important for people without a
disability to be able to reach people who do have a disability.
These are the same issues that were raised with TTYs and were over
come. Have you read Karen Peltz Strauss' book "A New Civil Right"?
It details all of the legislative history and clarifies these issues.
4- If a government agency cannot buy a phone system because it does
not have the appropriate features, the phone seller will be forced to
figure out how to overcome some hurdles to bring the cost down.
Otherwise, they lose business. The Sections give an incentive for
businesses to solve the issue. Plus, the costs are driven down e.g.
the decoder chip in tvs.
5- Everyone has to live within their budgets. It may mean that the
item cannot be purchased or money is shifted from somewhere else to
fund the dollars. But, the purchase cannot be at the expense of
people with disabilities if universal design is readily achievable.
The budget is looked at in the context of the overall budget and not
just the dollars that are allocated to say the phone system.
6- Without appropriate access, society as a whole incurs greater
costs through lost unemployment and productivity.
7- On a personal note, I have no problem paying taxes for services
that I do not use. I do that everyday for medicare, the fire dept
etc. That is part of being a citizen of the United States.
On Nov 8, 2006, at 10:57 AM, Brett, Thomas F wrote:
> I concur fully. That could be one of the recommendations that needs
> to come out of these subcommittees...remove this general exception.
> But when the Access Board does its Economic Impact it will say that
> for this new 'product' it will cost $$$ more to deploy it that if
> we only allowed people with disabilities to have it. For example,
> supplying screen reader technology to a small agency of 3,000
> people would cost in excess of $3,000,000. When the product being
> deployed cost only $500,000, it does not seem reasonable. The same
> argument can be made for telephones. I am aware of a telephone
> that that costs $495 per desk set that meets everything we have
> talked about in this subcommittee thus far. The normal desk set
> costs from $150 - $200. How would there be a good justification to
> the tax payers for buing a phone for everyone that costs $495.
> Tom Brett
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = on behalf of Jagbell
> Sent: Wed 11/8/2006 10:48 AM
> To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Requirements for telephone amplification
> It is all how the Rehabilitation act is interpreted. The purpose
> of this group is to close the gaps. Our goal should be universal
> access. Add-ons are not universal access.
> Janice Schacter
> On Nov 8, 2006, at 10:18 AM, Brett, Thomas F wrote:
>> I don't think it is right to say "If OPM doesn't insist that the
>> technology is
>> embedded than who will?"
>> OPM is required to follow the law like every other agency. There
>> is nothing in the regulations that authorizes an agency to require
>> more from the Rehabilitation Act that what is authorized.
>> Tom Brett
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = on behalf of Jagbell
>> Sent: Wed 11/8/2006 8:14 AM
>> To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Requirements for telephone
>> 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??
>> 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
>> > 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
- Next message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: Requirements for telephone amplification"
- Previous message in Thread: Brett, Thomas F: "Re: Requirements for telephone amplification"