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 10:50 AM

Can you please clarify this? Where is this definition from?

Thanks,

Janice



On Nov 8, 2006, at 12:39 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

> 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:teitac-telecom-
> = 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