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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Nov 08 2006 10:45 AM

The definition I have heard was that if there was a charge per user to add
access it was an adaptation and not built-in access.




Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Brett, Thomas F
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 9:58 AM
To: TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee; TEITAC Telecommunications
Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-telecom] Requirements for telephone amplification

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 amplification

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