Thread Subject: Comparable Access Current Language

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Diane Golden
Date: Thu, May 17 2007 12:15 PM
Subject: Comparable Access Current Language

When determining if individuals with disabilities have access to and use of
information and data that is comparable to that available to individuals
without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that individuals with
disabilities have access that is timely, accurate and complete, and in a
manner and medium appropriate to the significance of the message. Timely
access includes consideration of the speed with which a person with a
disability can use electronic and information technology to access
information or perform a task as compared to an individual without
disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the information and
data reflects the intended meaning especially when converted into another
form or media.


Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
Missouri Assistive Technology
816/350-5280 (direct voice)
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.at.mo.gov

From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Thu, May 17 2007 12:25 PM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access Current Language

Looks good to me.

Karen Strauss, CSD

----- Original Message -----
From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC SubPart A listserv (E-mail)" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 1:18 PM
Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access Current Language


> When determining if individuals with disabilities have access to and use
> of
> information and data that is comparable to that available to individuals
> without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that individuals with
> disabilities have access that is timely, accurate and complete, and in a
> manner and medium appropriate to the significance of the message. Timely
> access includes consideration of the speed with which a person with a
> disability can use electronic and information technology to access
> information or perform a task as compared to an individual without
> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the information
> and
> data reflects the intended meaning especially when converted into another
> form or media.
>
>
> Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
> Missouri Assistive Technology
> 816/350-5280 (direct voice)
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> www.at.mo.gov
>
>

From: Deborah Buck
Date: Thu, May 17 2007 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access Current Language

THANKS

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:19 PM
To: TEITAC SubPart A listserv (E-mail)
Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access Current Language

When determining if individuals with disabilities have access to and use of
information and data that is comparable to that available to individuals
without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that individuals with
disabilities have access that is timely, accurate and complete, and in a
manner and medium appropriate to the significance of the message. Timely
access includes consideration of the speed with which a person with a
disability can use electronic and information technology to access
information or perform a task as compared to an individual without
disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the information and
data reflects the intended meaning especially when converted into another
form or media.


Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
Missouri Assistive Technology
816/350-5280 (direct voice)
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.at.mo.gov

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Thu, May 17 2007 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access Current Language

Everything looks very nice to me but we don't describe "and in a manner
and medium appropriate to the significance of the message." I know this
was written about and discussed, but its missing here. I don't believe
this is plain language as I still don't have an easy phrase in my head
that matches these words. And, I think i actually do understand it.






Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
Golden
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:19 PM
To: TEITAC SubPart A listserv (E-mail)
Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access Current Language

When determining if individuals with disabilities have access to and use
of information and data that is comparable to that available to
individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
individuals with disabilities have access that is timely, accurate and
complete, and in a manner and medium appropriate to the significance of
the message. Timely access includes consideration of the speed with
which a person with a disability can use electronic and information
technology to access information or perform a task as compared to an
individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures
that the information and data reflects the intended meaning especially
when converted into another form or media.


Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
Missouri Assistive Technology
816/350-5280 (direct voice)
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.at.mo.gov

From: Tom Brett
Date: Thu, May 17 2007 2:35 PM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access Current Language

I don't understand what we are trying to say:

"in a manner and medium appropriate to the significance of the message."

This particular wording seems to be directed towards Federal Government
employees with disabilities as opposed to members of the public.

If this is true then I would think that it would be better said "in a manner
and medium appropriate to the performance of the individual's job."


Tom Brett


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:53 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access Current Language

Everything looks very nice to me but we don't describe "and in a manner
and medium appropriate to the significance of the message." I know this
was written about and discussed, but its missing here. I don't believe
this is plain language as I still don't have an easy phrase in my head
that matches these words. And, I think i actually do understand it.






Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
Golden
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:19 PM
To: TEITAC SubPart A listserv (E-mail)
Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access Current Language

When determining if individuals with disabilities have access to and use
of information and data that is comparable to that available to
individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
individuals with disabilities have access that is timely, accurate and
complete, and in a manner and medium appropriate to the significance of
the message. Timely access includes consideration of the speed with
which a person with a disability can use electronic and information
technology to access information or perform a task as compared to an
individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures
that the information and data reflects the intended meaning especially
when converted into another form or media.


Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
Missouri Assistive Technology
816/350-5280 (direct voice)
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.at.mo.gov

From: Salaets, Ken
Date: Fri, May 18 2007 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access Current Language

It is still not clear to me how you would measure "and in a manner and
medium appropriate." What is the benchmark? I appreciate that we are
now talking more in terms of this being guidance to government agencies,
but if I am a vendor offering a product or service covered by Section
508, I can envision not only multiple interpretations and, therefore,
multiple contract requirements between agencies, but even within
agencies.

Ken Salaets
ITI

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Hoffman,
Allen
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:53 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access Current Language

Everything looks very nice to me but we don't describe "and in a manner
and medium appropriate to the significance of the message." I know this
was written about and discussed, but its missing here. I don't believe
this is plain language as I still don't have an easy phrase in my head
that matches these words. And, I think i actually do understand it.






Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
Golden
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:19 PM
To: TEITAC SubPart A listserv (E-mail)
Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access Current Language

When determining if individuals with disabilities have access to and use
of information and data that is comparable to that available to
individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
individuals with disabilities have access that is timely, accurate and
complete, and in a manner and medium appropriate to the significance of
the message. Timely access includes consideration of the speed with
which a person with a disability can use electronic and information
technology to access information or perform a task as compared to an
individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures
that the information and data reflects the intended meaning especially
when converted into another form or media.


Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
Missouri Assistive Technology
816/350-5280 (direct voice)
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.at.mo.gov

From: Baker, Robert C.
Date: Fri, Jun 01 2007 7:10 AM
Subject: Comparable Access

I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed comparable access
provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium appropriate
to the significance of the message". The intended meaning of this
phrase is very unclear.


Thanks,
Robert

From: Diane Golden
Date: Fri, Jun 01 2007 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the discussion at the
plenary meeting. The following is the current version of that section.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/>

"When determining if individuals with disabilities have access to and use of
information and data that is comparable to that available to individuals
without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that individuals with
disabilities have access that is timely, accurate and complete. Timely
access includes consideration of the speed with which a person with a
disability can use electronic and information technology to access
information or perform a task as compared to an individual without
disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the information and
data reflects the intended meaning especially when converted into another
form or media. "



The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern expressed at
how this would (or would not) be used in solicitations. I think the
perception of the agency procurement people is that this would NOT be used
in a solicitation, but used internally by agency staff to evaluate if they
are meeting the statute requirements in delivery of access to employees and
the public. One option that might help address this would be to include
this language in the Purpose section (rather than application) as that is
where the reference to having "access to and use of information and data
that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?



Diane Golden



-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Baker, Robert
C.
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access



I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed comparable access
provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium appropriate to
the significance of the message". The intended meaning of this phrase is
very unclear.


Thanks,
Robert

From: jagbell
Date: Fri, Jun 01 2007 7:20 PM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

Can we add something like the following:
On Jun 1, 2007, at 9:07 AM, Baker, Robert C. wrote:

> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed comparable access
> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
> appropriate to the significance of the message in a manner that is
> the least obtrusive to the person needing the access. The
> intended meaning of this phrase is very unclear.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Robert
>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Sat, Jun 02 2007 5:50 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

Hi All,

The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated function. We need to
find a better word. This has more to do with efficiency than timeleness.
Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this message I quote below that
I don't understand.

"<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/>"

----- Original Message -----
From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the discussion at the
plenary meeting. The following is the current version of that section.

<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/>

"When determining if individuals with disabilities have access to and use of
information and data that is comparable to that available to individuals
without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that individuals with
disabilities have access that is timely, accurate and complete. Timely
access includes consideration of the speed with which a person with a
disability can use electronic and information technology to access
information or perform a task as compared to an individual without
disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the information and
data reflects the intended meaning especially when converted into another
form or media. "



The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern expressed at
how this would (or would not) be used in solicitations. I think the
perception of the agency procurement people is that this would NOT be used
in a solicitation, but used internally by agency staff to evaluate if they
are meeting the statute requirements in delivery of access to employees and
the public. One option that might help address this would be to include
this language in the Purpose section (rather than application) as that is
where the reference to having "access to and use of information and data
that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?



Diane Golden



-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Baker, Robert
C.
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access



I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed comparable access
provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium appropriate to
the significance of the message". The intended meaning of this phrase is
very unclear.


Thanks,
Robert

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sat, Jun 02 2007 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

Timely is included to make sure that information and access is provided on a
timely basis. That is, if others have access to information or devices now
- then people with disabilities should have access now.

I think that would be timely - not efficiency.

However having efficient access is also important.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> David Poehlman
> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> Hi All,
>
> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
> function. We need to find a better word. This has more to
> do with efficiency than timeleness.
> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this message I
> quote below that I don't understand.
>
> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> />"
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
> discussion at the
> plenary meeting. The following is the current version of
> that section.
>
> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> />
>
> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
> access to and use of
> information and data that is comparable to that available to
> individuals
> without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that individuals with
> disabilities have access that is timely, accurate and
> complete. Timely
> access includes consideration of the speed with which a person with a
> disability can use electronic and information technology to access
> information or perform a task as compared to an individual without
> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
> information and
> data reflects the intended meaning especially when converted
> into another
> form or media. "
>
>
>
> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
> expressed at
> how this would (or would not) be used in solicitations. I think the
> perception of the agency procurement people is that this
> would NOT be used
> in a solicitation, but used internally by agency staff to
> evaluate if they
> are meeting the statute requirements in delivery of access to
> employees and
> the public. One option that might help address this would
> be to include
> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
> application) as that is
> where the reference to having "access to and use of
> information and data
> that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
>
>
>
> Diane Golden
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
> Baker, Robert
> C.
> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
>
> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed comparable access
> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
> appropriate to
> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
> this phrase is
> very unclear.
>
>
> Thanks,
> Robert
>

From: jagbell
Date: Sun, Jun 03 2007 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

It should also be in the least obtrusive manner possible. Someone
should not have to wear burdensome equipment if there is a more
streamlined system available. I am finding that equipment is being
purchased that is more burdensome for people with hearing loss
because the equipment will also cover people with visual impairments
rather than doing what is best for each disability.

On Jun 3, 2007, at 1:22 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

> Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
> provided on a
> timely basis. That is, if others have access to information or
> devices now
> - then people with disabilities should have access now.
>
> I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
>
> However having efficient access is also important.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> David Poehlman
>> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
>> function. We need to find a better word. This has more to
>> do with efficiency than timeleness.
>> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this message I
>> quote below that I don't understand.
>>
>> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>> />"
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
>> discussion at the
>> plenary meeting. The following is the current version of
>> that section.
>>
>> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>> />
>>
>> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
>> access to and use of
>> information and data that is comparable to that available to
>> individuals
>> without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that individuals with
>> disabilities have access that is timely, accurate and
>> complete. Timely
>> access includes consideration of the speed with which a person with a
>> disability can use electronic and information technology to access
>> information or perform a task as compared to an individual without
>> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
>> information and
>> data reflects the intended meaning especially when converted
>> into another
>> form or media. "
>>
>>
>>
>> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
>> expressed at
>> how this would (or would not) be used in solicitations. I think the
>> perception of the agency procurement people is that this
>> would NOT be used
>> in a solicitation, but used internally by agency staff to
>> evaluate if they
>> are meeting the statute requirements in delivery of access to
>> employees and
>> the public. One option that might help address this would
>> be to include
>> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
>> application) as that is
>> where the reference to having "access to and use of
>> information and data
>> that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
>>
>>
>>
>> Diane Golden
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>> Baker, Robert
>> C.
>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>>
>> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed comparable access
>> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
>> appropriate to
>> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
>> this phrase is
>> very unclear.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robert
>>

From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Sun, Jun 03 2007 8:05 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too often, the
information is given at a later time, when it is not as relevant, such as a
transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning while the
meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic version of something,
weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I watched this happen
time and again when I worked in the government.

Karen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


> Timely is included to make sure that information and access is provided on
> a
> timely basis. That is, if others have access to information or devices
> now
> - then people with disabilities should have access now.
>
> I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
>
> However having efficient access is also important.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> David Poehlman
>> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
>> function. We need to find a better word. This has more to
>> do with efficiency than timeleness.
>> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this message I
>> quote below that I don't understand.
>>
>> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>> />"
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
>> discussion at the
>> plenary meeting. The following is the current version of
>> that section.
>>
>> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>> />
>>
>> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
>> access to and use of
>> information and data that is comparable to that available to
>> individuals
>> without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that individuals with
>> disabilities have access that is timely, accurate and
>> complete. Timely
>> access includes consideration of the speed with which a person with a
>> disability can use electronic and information technology to access
>> information or perform a task as compared to an individual without
>> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
>> information and
>> data reflects the intended meaning especially when converted
>> into another
>> form or media. "
>>
>>
>>
>> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
>> expressed at
>> how this would (or would not) be used in solicitations. I think the
>> perception of the agency procurement people is that this
>> would NOT be used
>> in a solicitation, but used internally by agency staff to
>> evaluate if they
>> are meeting the statute requirements in delivery of access to
>> employees and
>> the public. One option that might help address this would
>> be to include
>> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
>> application) as that is
>> where the reference to having "access to and use of
>> information and data
>> that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
>>
>>
>>
>> Diane Golden
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>> Baker, Robert
>> C.
>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>>
>> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed comparable access
>> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
>> appropriate to
>> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
>> this phrase is
>> very unclear.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robert
>>

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency and is the
term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and complete from my
recollection.



Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
Peltz Strauss
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access

Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too often, the
information is given at a later time, when it is not as relevant, such
as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning while
the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic version of
something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.

Karen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


> Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
> provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
> information or devices now
> - then people with disabilities should have access now.
>
> I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
>
> However having efficient access is also important.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
>> Poehlman
>> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated function. We
>> need to find a better word. This has more to do with efficiency than

>> timeleness.
>> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this message I quote
>> below that I don't understand.
>>
>> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>> />"
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the discussion at
>> the plenary meeting. The following is the current version of that
>> section.
>>
>> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>> />
>>
>> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have access to and

>> use of information and data that is comparable to that available to
>> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
>> individuals with disabilities have access that is timely, accurate
>> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the speed with

>> which a person with a disability can use electronic and information
>> technology to access information or perform a task as compared to an
>> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
>> ensures that the information and data reflects the intended meaning
>> especially when converted into another form or media. "
>>
>>
>>
>> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
>> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in solicitations.

>> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is that this
>> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally by agency
>> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute requirements in
>> delivery of access to employees and
>> the public. One option that might help address this would
>> be to include
>> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
>> application) as that is
>> where the reference to having "access to and use of information and
>> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
>>
>>
>>
>> Diane Golden
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Baker,
>> Robert C.
>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>>
>> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed comparable access
>> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
>> appropriate to
>> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
>> this phrase is
>> very unclear.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robert
>>

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

I think efficient is another necessary dimension. It means that the
method required by the user must be productive, not arduous. For
example, an application that is not screen reader compatible may have
its own speech capability. But if that speech capability can only
speak at 30 words per minute and can only spell words not in its vocabulary,
it should not be an acceptable solution.

***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
> and is the term we should be using. it was timely, accurate,
> and complete from my recollection.
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Karen Peltz Strauss
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
> often, the information is given at a later time, when it is
> not as relevant, such as a transcript of a meeting instead of
> interpreters or captioning while the meeting is going on. Or
> a Brailled or electronic version of something, weeks after
> sighted people get the printed version. I watched this
> happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>
> Karen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> > Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
> > provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
> > information or devices now
> > - then people with disabilities should have access now.
> >
> > I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
> >
> > However having efficient access is also important.
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of David
> >> Poehlman
> >> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
> function. We
> >> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
> efficiency than
>
> >> timeleness.
> >> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this message I quote
> >> below that I don't understand.
> >>
> >> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />"
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
> discussion at
> >> the plenary meeting. The following is the current version of that
> >> section.
> >>
> >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />
> >>
> >> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
> access to and
>
> >> use of information and data that is comparable to that
> available to
> >> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
> >> individuals with disabilities have access that is timely, accurate
> >> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
> speed with
>
> >> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
> information
> >> technology to access information or perform a task as
> compared to an
> >> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
> >> ensures that the information and data reflects the
> intended meaning
> >> especially when converted into another form or media. "
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
> >> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
> solicitations.
>
> >> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
> that this
> >> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally by agency
> >> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute requirements in
> >> delivery of access to employees and
> >> the public. One option that might help address this would
> >> be to include
> >> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
> >> application) as that is
> >> where the reference to having "access to and use of
> information and
> >> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Diane Golden
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf
> Of Baker,
> >> Robert C.
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
> comparable access
> >> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
> >> appropriate to
> >> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
> >> this phrase is
> >> very unclear.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Robert
> >>

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

OK, so lets just do:
timely, accurate, complete, and efficient, (TACE).




Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:00 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access

I think efficient is another necessary dimension. It means that the
method required by the user must be productive, not arduous. For
example, an application that is not screen reader compatible may have
its own speech capability. But if that speech capability can only speak
at 30 words per minute and can only spell words not in its vocabulary,
it should not be an acceptable solution.

***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency and is the
> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and complete from
> my recollection.
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
> Peltz Strauss
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too often, the

> information is given at a later time, when it is not as relevant, such

> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
> while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic version of

> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>
> Karen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> > Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
> > provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
> > information or devices now
> > - then people with disabilities should have access now.
> >
> > I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
> >
> > However having efficient access is also important.
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of David
> >> Poehlman
> >> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
> function. We
> >> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
> efficiency than
>
> >> timeleness.
> >> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this message I quote
> >> below that I don't understand.
> >>
> >> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />"
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
> discussion at
> >> the plenary meeting. The following is the current version of that
> >> section.
> >>
> >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />
> >>
> >> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
> access to and
>
> >> use of information and data that is comparable to that
> available to
> >> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
> >> individuals with disabilities have access that is timely, accurate
> >> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
> speed with
>
> >> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
> information
> >> technology to access information or perform a task as
> compared to an
> >> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
> >> ensures that the information and data reflects the
> intended meaning
> >> especially when converted into another form or media. "
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
> >> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
> solicitations.
>
> >> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
> that this
> >> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally by agency
> >> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute requirements in
> >> delivery of access to employees and
> >> the public. One option that might help address this would
> >> be to include
> >> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
> >> application) as that is
> >> where the reference to having "access to and use of
> information and
> >> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Diane Golden
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf
> Of Baker,
> >> Robert C.
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
> comparable access
> >> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
> >> appropriate to
> >> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
> >> this phrase is
> >> very unclear.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Robert
> >>

From: Deborah Buck
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

The concept of efficiency and productivity was the crux of the initial
discussion on comparable access. I believe that through discussions there
was a recognition that other factors, such as timeliness, contributes to
efficiency, but the concept of timeliness also needs to stand alone as an
additional consideration. I don't believe that we are saying it is an
either - or, but rather both concepts need to be included.

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:00 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access

I think efficient is another necessary dimension. It means that the
method required by the user must be productive, not arduous. For
example, an application that is not screen reader compatible may have
its own speech capability. But if that speech capability can only
speak at 30 words per minute and can only spell words not in its vocabulary,
it should not be an acceptable solution.

***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
> and is the term we should be using. it was timely, accurate,
> and complete from my recollection.
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Karen Peltz Strauss
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
> often, the information is given at a later time, when it is
> not as relevant, such as a transcript of a meeting instead of
> interpreters or captioning while the meeting is going on. Or
> a Brailled or electronic version of something, weeks after
> sighted people get the printed version. I watched this
> happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>
> Karen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> > Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
> > provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
> > information or devices now
> > - then people with disabilities should have access now.
> >
> > I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
> >
> > However having efficient access is also important.
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of David
> >> Poehlman
> >> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
> function. We
> >> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
> efficiency than
>
> >> timeleness.
> >> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this message I quote
> >> below that I don't understand.
> >>
> >> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />"
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
> discussion at
> >> the plenary meeting. The following is the current version of that
> >> section.
> >>
> >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />
> >>
> >> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
> access to and
>
> >> use of information and data that is comparable to that
> available to
> >> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
> >> individuals with disabilities have access that is timely, accurate
> >> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
> speed with
>
> >> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
> information
> >> technology to access information or perform a task as
> compared to an
> >> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
> >> ensures that the information and data reflects the
> intended meaning
> >> especially when converted into another form or media. "
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
> >> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
> solicitations.
>
> >> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
> that this
> >> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally by agency
> >> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute requirements in
> >> delivery of access to employees and
> >> the public. One option that might help address this would
> >> be to include
> >> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
> >> application) as that is
> >> where the reference to having "access to and use of
> information and
> >> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Diane Golden
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf
> Of Baker,
> >> Robert C.
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
> comparable access
> >> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
> >> appropriate to
> >> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
> >> this phrase is
> >> very unclear.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Robert
> >>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

and describe timely in a clear way?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


OK, so lets just do:
timely, accurate, complete, and efficient, (TACE).




Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:00 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access

I think efficient is another necessary dimension. It means that the
method required by the user must be productive, not arduous. For
example, an application that is not screen reader compatible may have
its own speech capability. But if that speech capability can only speak
at 30 words per minute and can only spell words not in its vocabulary,
it should not be an acceptable solution.

***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency and is the
> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and complete from
> my recollection.
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
> Peltz Strauss
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too often, the

> information is given at a later time, when it is not as relevant, such

> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
> while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic version of

> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>
> Karen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> > Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
> > provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
> > information or devices now
> > - then people with disabilities should have access now.
> >
> > I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
> >
> > However having efficient access is also important.
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of David
> >> Poehlman
> >> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
> function. We
> >> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
> efficiency than
>
> >> timeleness.
> >> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this message I quote
> >> below that I don't understand.
> >>
> >> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />"
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
> discussion at
> >> the plenary meeting. The following is the current version of that
> >> section.
> >>
> >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />
> >>
> >> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
> access to and
>
> >> use of information and data that is comparable to that
> available to
> >> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
> >> individuals with disabilities have access that is timely, accurate
> >> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
> speed with
>
> >> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
> information
> >> technology to access information or perform a task as
> compared to an
> >> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
> >> ensures that the information and data reflects the
> intended meaning
> >> especially when converted into another form or media. "
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
> >> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
> solicitations.
>
> >> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
> that this
> >> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally by agency
> >> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute requirements in
> >> delivery of access to employees and
> >> the public. One option that might help address this would
> >> be to include
> >> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
> >> application) as that is
> >> where the reference to having "access to and use of
> information and
> >> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Diane Golden
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf
> Of Baker,
> >> Robert C.
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
> comparable access
> >> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
> >> appropriate to
> >> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
> >> this phrase is
> >> very unclear.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Robert
> >>

From: jagbell
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

Also, access should be provided at the same time and there should be
not delays to there creates a 2nd class.

Janice
On Jun 4, 2007, at 1:35 PM, Jim Tobias wrote:

> You're right, Deborah -- both "timeliness" and "efficiency",
> because they
> are
> 2 different requirements.
>
> I think "timeliness" is being used to rule out long delays, like
> waiting for
> a
> printed braille manual or the many public sector phone lines that
> serve
> voice
> callers right away but only collect TTY messages to be returned
> later. I've
> looked through a thesaurus, and I think "timeliness" is still the
> best word
> for this concept.
>
> ***
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> skype jimtobias
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Deborah Buck [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:16 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> The concept of efficiency and productivity was the crux of
>> the initial discussion on comparable access. I believe that
>> through discussions there was a recognition that other
>> factors, such as timeliness, contributes to efficiency, but
>> the concept of timeliness also needs to stand alone as an
>> additional consideration. I don't believe that we are saying
>> it is an either - or, but rather both concepts need to be included.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> Jim Tobias
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:00 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> I think efficient is another necessary dimension. It means
>> that the method required by the user must be productive, not
>> arduous. For example, an application that is not screen
>> reader compatible may have its own speech capability. But if
>> that speech capability can only speak at 30 words per minute
>> and can only spell words not in its vocabulary, it should not
>> be an acceptable solution.
>>
>> ***
>> Jim Tobias
>> Inclusive Technologies
>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
>> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
>> skype jimtobias
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
>> and is the
>>> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
>> complete from
>>> my recollection.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
>>> Peltz Strauss
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
>> often, the
>>> information is given at a later time, when it is not as
>> relevant, such
>>> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
>>> while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic
>> version of
>>> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
>>> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>>> Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
>>>> provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
>>>> information or devices now
>>>> - then people with disabilities should have access now.
>>>>
>>>> I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
>>>>
>>>> However having efficient access is also important.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
>>> Of David
>>>>> Poehlman
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
>>> function. We
>>>>> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
>>> efficiency than
>>>
>>>>> timeleness.
>>>>> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this
>> message I quote
>>>>> below that I don't understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />"
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
>>> discussion at
>>>>> the plenary meeting. The following is the current
>> version of that
>>>>> section.
>>>>>
>>>>> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />
>>>>>
>>>>> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
>>> access to and
>>>
>>>>> use of information and data that is comparable to that
>>> available to
>>>>> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
>>>>> individuals with disabilities have access that is
>> timely, accurate
>>>>> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
>>> speed with
>>>
>>>>> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
>>> information
>>>>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>>> compared to an
>>>>> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
>>>>> ensures that the information and data reflects the
>>> intended meaning
>>>>> especially when converted into another form or media. "
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
>>>>> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
>>> solicitations.
>>>
>>>>> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
>>> that this
>>>>> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally
>> by agency
>>>>> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute
>> requirements in
>>>>> delivery of access to employees and
>>>>> the public. One option that might help address this would
>>>>> be to include
>>>>> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
>>>>> application) as that is
>>>>> where the reference to having "access to and use of
>>> information and
>>>>> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Diane Golden
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf
>>> Of Baker,
>>>>> Robert C.
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
>>> comparable access
>>>>> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
>>>>> appropriate to
>>>>> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
>>>>> this phrase is
>>>>> very unclear.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robert
>>>>>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 11:45 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

Indeed.

I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for 'content' and for
'devices'

We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language



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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> David Poehlman
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> I agree with everything said about this but the note below
> does not express this clearly ehough and comparable access is
> a term oft used when descriing side by side modalities not
> alternate formats?
> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with which
> a person with a disability can use electronic and information
> technology to access information or perform a task as
> compared to an individual without disabilities
>
> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
> able to use the equipment in a comparable way.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency and is the
> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
> complete from my
> recollection.
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
> Peltz Strauss
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too often, the
> information is given at a later time, when it is not as relevant, such
> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or
> captioning while
> the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic version of
> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>
> Karen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> > Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
> > provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
> > information or devices now
> > - then people with disabilities should have access now.
> >
> > I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
> >
> > However having efficient access is also important.
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
> >> Poehlman
> >> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated function. We
> >> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
> efficiency than
>
> >> timeleness.
> >> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this message I quote
> >> below that I don't understand.
> >>
> >> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />"
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the discussion at
> >> the plenary meeting. The following is the current version of that
> >> section.
> >>
> >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />
> >>
> >> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
> access to and
>
> >> use of information and data that is comparable to that available to
> >> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
> >> individuals with disabilities have access that is timely, accurate
> >> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
> speed with
>
> >> which a person with a disability can use electronic and information
> >> technology to access information or perform a task as
> compared to an
> >> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
> >> ensures that the information and data reflects the intended meaning
> >> especially when converted into another form or media. "
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
> >> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
> solicitations.
>
> >> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
> that this
> >> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally by agency
> >> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute requirements in
> >> delivery of access to employees and
> >> the public. One option that might help address this would
> >> be to include
> >> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
> >> application) as that is
> >> where the reference to having "access to and use of information and
> >> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Diane Golden
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Baker,
> >> Robert C.
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed comparable access
> >> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
> >> appropriate to
> >> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
> >> this phrase is
> >> very unclear.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Robert
> >>

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 11:50 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

I concur.



Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
Golden
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:45 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access

So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back into a
definition and separating timely and efficient.

Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access Comparable access means
that individuals with disabilities have access to and use of information
and data that is timely, accurate, complete and efficient when compared
to that available to individuals without disabilities. Timely access
ensures that individuals with disabilities have information and data
available to them at the same time as individuals without disabilities.
Accurate and complete access ensures that the information and data
reflects the intended meaning especially when converted into another
form or media. Efficiency of access includes consideration of the speed
with which a person with a disability can use electronic and information
technology to access information or perform a task as compared to an
individual without disabilities.

Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns about how
this would be used or not used in solicitations?

Diane

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


Indeed.

I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for 'content' and
for 'devices'

We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language



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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
> Poehlman
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> I agree with everything said about this but the note below does not
> express this clearly ehough and comparable access is a term oft used
> when descriing side by side modalities not alternate formats?
> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with which a person

> with a disability can use electronic and information technology to
> access information or perform a task as compared to an individual
> without disabilities
>
> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being able to use
> the equipment in a comparable way.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency and is the
> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and complete from
> my recollection.
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
> Peltz Strauss
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too often, the

> information is given at a later time, when it is not as relevant, such

> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
> while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic version of

> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>
> Karen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> > Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
> > provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
> > information or devices now
> > - then people with disabilities should have access now.
> >
> > I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
> >
> > However having efficient access is also important.
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David

> >> Poehlman
> >> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated function. We

> >> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
> efficiency than
>
> >> timeleness.
> >> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this message I quote
> >> below that I don't understand.
> >>
> >> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />"
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the discussion at

> >> the plenary meeting. The following is the current version of that
> >> section.
> >>
> >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />
> >>
> >> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
> access to and
>
> >> use of information and data that is comparable to that available to

> >> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
> >> individuals with disabilities have access that is timely, accurate
> >> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
> speed with
>
> >> which a person with a disability can use electronic and information

> >> technology to access information or perform a task as
> compared to an
> >> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
> >> ensures that the information and data reflects the intended meaning

> >> especially when converted into another form or media. "
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
> >> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
> solicitations.
>
> >> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
> that this
> >> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally by agency
> >> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute requirements in
> >> delivery of access to employees and
> >> the public. One option that might help address this would
> >> be to include
> >> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
> >> application) as that is
> >> where the reference to having "access to and use of information and

> >> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Diane Golden
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Baker,

> >> Robert C.
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed comparable access

> >> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
> >> appropriate to
> >> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
> >> this phrase is
> >> very unclear.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Robert
> >>

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

I wondered who would catch that.

We still aren't including the idea behind the phrasing of manor and
medium appropriate to the message.

I believe timely, accurate, complete, and efficient are definable well
enough, but the "manor and medium appropriate to the message"?

Not only this, but comparable access includes:
Content, devices, and everything in between.

So, if web pages are con3tent, browsed by a browser on a platform on a
desktop computer, the comparable access must be timely, accurate,
complete, and efficient.

So, for example,

The page must be provided at the same time as any other page if
different for accessibility;

The information on the accessible page must be accurate;

The information on the page must be complete;

The information on the page must be accessible in efficient ways via
various combinations of other platforms and items.

I think defining this phrase is never something that can be a
'technical" Boolean definition, but the framework for others to
determine the meaning. if we use that approach we'll be able to live
with the gray areas, as we probably won't ever nail this down to the
precision some of us might like.









Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
Poehlman
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:29 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access

and describe timely in a clear way?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:13 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


OK, so lets just do:
timely, accurate, complete, and efficient, (TACE).




Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:00 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access

I think efficient is another necessary dimension. It means that the
method required by the user must be productive, not arduous. For
example, an application that is not screen reader compatible may have
its own speech capability. But if that speech capability can only speak
at 30 words per minute and can only spell words not in its vocabulary,
it should not be an acceptable solution.

***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency and is the
> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and complete from
> my recollection.
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
> Peltz Strauss
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too often, the

> information is given at a later time, when it is not as relevant, such

> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
> while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic version of

> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>
> Karen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> > Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
> > provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
> > information or devices now
> > - then people with disabilities should have access now.
> >
> > I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
> >
> > However having efficient access is also important.
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> Of David
> >> Poehlman
> >> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
> function. We
> >> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
> efficiency than
>
> >> timeleness.
> >> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this message I quote
> >> below that I don't understand.
> >>
> >> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />"
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
> discussion at
> >> the plenary meeting. The following is the current version of that
> >> section.
> >>
> >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />
> >>
> >> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
> access to and
>
> >> use of information and data that is comparable to that
> available to
> >> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
> >> individuals with disabilities have access that is timely, accurate
> >> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
> speed with
>
> >> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
> information
> >> technology to access information or perform a task as
> compared to an
> >> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
> >> ensures that the information and data reflects the
> intended meaning
> >> especially when converted into another form or media. "
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
> >> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
> solicitations.
>
> >> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
> that this
> >> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally by agency
> >> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute requirements in
> >> delivery of access to employees and
> >> the public. One option that might help address this would
> >> be to include
> >> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
> >> application) as that is
> >> where the reference to having "access to and use of
> information and
> >> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Diane Golden
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf
> Of Baker,
> >> Robert C.
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
> comparable access
> >> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
> >> appropriate to
> >> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
> >> this phrase is
> >> very unclear.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Robert
> >>

From: Diane Golden
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back into a definition
and separating timely and efficient.

Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access
Comparable access means that individuals with disabilities have access to
and use of information and data that is timely, accurate, complete and
efficient when compared to that available to individuals without
disabilities. Timely access ensures that individuals with disabilities have
information and data available to them at the same time as individuals
without disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
information and data reflects the intended meaning especially when converted
into another form or media. Efficiency of access includes consideration of
the speed with which a person with a disability can use electronic and
information technology to access information or perform a task as compared
to an individual without disabilities.

Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns about how this
would be used or not used in solicitations?

Diane

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


Indeed.

I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for 'content' and for
'devices'

We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language



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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> David Poehlman
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> I agree with everything said about this but the note below
> does not express this clearly ehough and comparable access is
> a term oft used when descriing side by side modalities not
> alternate formats?
> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with which
> a person with a disability can use electronic and information
> technology to access information or perform a task as
> compared to an individual without disabilities
>
> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
> able to use the equipment in a comparable way.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency and is the
> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
> complete from my
> recollection.
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
> Peltz Strauss
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too often, the
> information is given at a later time, when it is not as relevant, such
> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or
> captioning while
> the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic version of
> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>
> Karen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> > Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
> > provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
> > information or devices now
> > - then people with disabilities should have access now.
> >
> > I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
> >
> > However having efficient access is also important.
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
> >> Poehlman
> >> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated function. We
> >> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
> efficiency than
>
> >> timeleness.
> >> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this message I quote
> >> below that I don't understand.
> >>
> >> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />"
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the discussion at
> >> the plenary meeting. The following is the current version of that
> >> section.
> >>
> >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />
> >>
> >> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
> access to and
>
> >> use of information and data that is comparable to that available to
> >> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
> >> individuals with disabilities have access that is timely, accurate
> >> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
> speed with
>
> >> which a person with a disability can use electronic and information
> >> technology to access information or perform a task as
> compared to an
> >> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
> >> ensures that the information and data reflects the intended meaning
> >> especially when converted into another form or media. "
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
> >> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
> solicitations.
>
> >> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
> that this
> >> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally by agency
> >> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute requirements in
> >> delivery of access to employees and
> >> the public. One option that might help address this would
> >> be to include
> >> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
> >> application) as that is
> >> where the reference to having "access to and use of information and
> >> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Diane Golden
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Baker,
> >> Robert C.
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed comparable access
> >> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
> >> appropriate to
> >> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
> >> this phrase is
> >> very unclear.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Robert
> >>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 12:05 PM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

I agree with everything said about this but the note below does not express
this clearly ehough and comparable access is a term oft used when descriing
side by side modalities not alternate formats?
"Timely access includes consideration of the speed with which a person with
a disability can use electronic and information technology to access
information or perform a task as compared to an individual without
disabilities

To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being able to use the
equipment in a comparable way.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency and is the
term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and complete from my
recollection.



Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
Peltz Strauss
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access

Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too often, the
information is given at a later time, when it is not as relevant, such
as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning while
the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic version of
something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.

Karen

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


> Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
> provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
> information or devices now
> - then people with disabilities should have access now.
>
> I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
>
> However having efficient access is also important.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
>> Poehlman
>> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated function. We
>> need to find a better word. This has more to do with efficiency than

>> timeleness.
>> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this message I quote
>> below that I don't understand.
>>
>> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>> />"
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the discussion at
>> the plenary meeting. The following is the current version of that
>> section.
>>
>> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>> />
>>
>> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have access to and

>> use of information and data that is comparable to that available to
>> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
>> individuals with disabilities have access that is timely, accurate
>> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the speed with

>> which a person with a disability can use electronic and information
>> technology to access information or perform a task as compared to an
>> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
>> ensures that the information and data reflects the intended meaning
>> especially when converted into another form or media. "
>>
>>
>>
>> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
>> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in solicitations.

>> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is that this
>> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally by agency
>> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute requirements in
>> delivery of access to employees and
>> the public. One option that might help address this would
>> be to include
>> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
>> application) as that is
>> where the reference to having "access to and use of information and
>> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
>>
>>
>>
>> Diane Golden
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Baker,
>> Robert C.
>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>>
>> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed comparable access
>> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
>> appropriate to
>> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
>> this phrase is
>> very unclear.
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Robert
>>

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

You're right, Deborah -- both "timeliness" and "efficiency", because they
are
2 different requirements.

I think "timeliness" is being used to rule out long delays, like waiting for
a
printed braille manual or the many public sector phone lines that serve
voice
callers right away but only collect TTY messages to be returned later. I've
looked through a thesaurus, and I think "timeliness" is still the best word
for this concept.

***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Deborah Buck [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:16 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> The concept of efficiency and productivity was the crux of
> the initial discussion on comparable access. I believe that
> through discussions there was a recognition that other
> factors, such as timeliness, contributes to efficiency, but
> the concept of timeliness also needs to stand alone as an
> additional consideration. I don't believe that we are saying
> it is an either - or, but rather both concepts need to be included.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Jim Tobias
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:00 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> I think efficient is another necessary dimension. It means
> that the method required by the user must be productive, not
> arduous. For example, an application that is not screen
> reader compatible may have its own speech capability. But if
> that speech capability can only speak at 30 words per minute
> and can only spell words not in its vocabulary, it should not
> be an acceptable solution.
>
> ***
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> skype jimtobias
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
> > To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >
> > I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
> and is the
> > term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
> complete from
> > my recollection.
> >
> >
> >
> > Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
> > Peltz Strauss
> > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
> > To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >
> > Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
> often, the
> > information is given at a later time, when it is not as
> relevant, such
> > as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
> > while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic
> version of
> > something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
> > watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >
> >
> > > Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
> > > provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
> > > information or devices now
> > > - then people with disabilities should have access now.
> > >
> > > I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
> > >
> > > However having efficient access is also important.
> > >
> > >
> > > Gregg
> > > -- ------------------------------
> > > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf
> > Of David
> > >> Poehlman
> > >> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
> > >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> > >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> > >>
> > >> Hi All,
> > >>
> > >> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
> > function. We
> > >> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
> > efficiency than
> >
> > >> timeleness.
> > >> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this
> message I quote
> > >> below that I don't understand.
> > >>
> > >> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> > >> />"
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > >> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> > >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
> > >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
> > discussion at
> > >> the plenary meeting. The following is the current
> version of that
> > >> section.
> > >>
> > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> > >> />
> > >>
> > >> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
> > access to and
> >
> > >> use of information and data that is comparable to that
> > available to
> > >> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
> > >> individuals with disabilities have access that is
> timely, accurate
> > >> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
> > speed with
> >
> > >> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
> > information
> > >> technology to access information or perform a task as
> > compared to an
> > >> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
> > >> ensures that the information and data reflects the
> > intended meaning
> > >> especially when converted into another form or media. "
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
> > >> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
> > solicitations.
> >
> > >> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
> > that this
> > >> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally
> by agency
> > >> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute
> requirements in
> > >> delivery of access to employees and
> > >> the public. One option that might help address this would
> > >> be to include
> > >> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
> > >> application) as that is
> > >> where the reference to having "access to and use of
> > information and
> > >> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Diane Golden
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf
> > Of Baker,
> > >> Robert C.
> > >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
> > >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
> > comparable access
> > >> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
> > >> appropriate to
> > >> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
> > >> this phrase is
> > >> very unclear.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Robert
> > >>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

Looks good on quick read.

Nice job.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:45 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back
> into a definition and separating timely and efficient.
>
> Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access Comparable
> access means that individuals with disabilities have access
> to and use of information and data that is timely, accurate,
> complete and efficient when compared to that available to
> individuals without disabilities. Timely access ensures that
> individuals with disabilities have information and data
> available to them at the same time as individuals without
> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
> information and data reflects the intended meaning especially
> when converted into another form or media. Efficiency of
> access includes consideration of the speed with which a
> person with a disability can use electronic and information
> technology to access information or perform a task as
> compared to an individual without disabilities.
>
> Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns
> about how this would be used or not used in solicitations?
>
> Diane
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
> Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> Indeed.
>
> I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for
> 'content' and for 'devices'
>
> We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
> > Poehlman
> > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
> > To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >
> > I agree with everything said about this but the note below does not
> > express this clearly ehough and comparable access is a term
> oft used
> > when descriing side by side modalities not alternate formats?
> > "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with
> which a person
> > with a disability can use electronic and information technology to
> > access information or perform a task as compared to an individual
> > without disabilities
> >
> > To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
> able to use
> > the equipment in a comparable way.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >
> >
> > I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
> and is the
> > term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
> complete from
> > my recollection.
> >
> >
> >
> > Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
> > Peltz Strauss
> > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
> > To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >
> > Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
> often, the
> > information is given at a later time, when it is not as
> relevant, such
> > as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
> > while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic
> version of
> > something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
> > watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >
> >
> > > Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
> > > provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
> > > information or devices now
> > > - then people with disabilities should have access now.
> > >
> > > I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
> > >
> > > However having efficient access is also important.
> > >
> > >
> > > Gregg
> > > -- ------------------------------
> > > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of David
> > >> Poehlman
> > >> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
> > >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> > >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> > >>
> > >> Hi All,
> > >>
> > >> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
> function. We
> > >> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
> > efficiency than
> >
> > >> timeleness.
> > >> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this
> message I quote
> > >> below that I don't understand.
> > >>
> > >> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> > >> />"
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > >> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> > >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
> > >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
> discussion at
> > >> the plenary meeting. The following is the current
> version of that
> > >> section.
> > >>
> > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> > >> />
> > >>
> > >> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
> > access to and
> >
> > >> use of information and data that is comparable to that
> available to
> > >> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
> > >> individuals with disabilities have access that is
> timely, accurate
> > >> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
> > speed with
> >
> > >> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
> information
> > >> technology to access information or perform a task as
> > compared to an
> > >> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
> > >> ensures that the information and data reflects the
> intended meaning
> > >> especially when converted into another form or media. "
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
> > >> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
> > solicitations.
> >
> > >> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
> > that this
> > >> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally
> by agency
> > >> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute
> requirements in
> > >> delivery of access to employees and
> > >> the public. One option that might help address this would
> > >> be to include
> > >> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
> > >> application) as that is
> > >> where the reference to having "access to and use of
> information and
> > >> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Diane Golden
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On
> Behalf Of Baker,
> > >> Robert C.
> > >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
> > >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
> comparable access
> > >> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
> > >> appropriate to
> > >> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
> > >> this phrase is
> > >> very unclear.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Robert
> > >>

From: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

Peers,

I'm not trying to pick on semantics, but would "Equivalent
Access" be a better term? I thought equivalent (warts and all) is more
descriptive of the functional requirement we are expressing.
'Comparable' brings up my discussion in the past with content developers
where they would ask for qualification. Whenever we discussed
'equivalent' they also embodied the purpose, not just the content.

I'll go back to lurking now...


Norman B. Robinson
Section 508 Coordinator
IT Governance, US Postal Service
phone: 202.268.8246


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
Golden
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:45 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back into a
definition
and separating timely and efficient.

Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access
Comparable access means that individuals with disabilities have access
to
and use of information and data that is timely, accurate, complete and
efficient when compared to that available to individuals without
disabilities. Timely access ensures that individuals with disabilities
have
information and data available to them at the same time as individuals
without disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
information and data reflects the intended meaning especially when
converted
into another form or media. Efficiency of access includes consideration
of
the speed with which a person with a disability can use electronic and
information technology to access information or perform a task as
compared
to an individual without disabilities.

Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns about how
this
would be used or not used in solicitations?

Diane

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


Indeed.

I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for 'content' and
for
'devices'

We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language



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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> David Poehlman
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> I agree with everything said about this but the note below
> does not express this clearly ehough and comparable access is
> a term oft used when descriing side by side modalities not
> alternate formats?
> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with which
> a person with a disability can use electronic and information
> technology to access information or perform a task as
> compared to an individual without disabilities
>
> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
> able to use the equipment in a comparable way.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency and is the
> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
> complete from my
> recollection.
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
> Peltz Strauss
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too often, the
> information is given at a later time, when it is not as relevant, such
> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or
> captioning while
> the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic version of
> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>
> Karen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> > Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
> > provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
> > information or devices now
> > - then people with disabilities should have access now.
> >
> > I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
> >
> > However having efficient access is also important.
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
> >> Poehlman
> >> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated function. We
> >> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
> efficiency than
>
> >> timeleness.
> >> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this message I quote
> >> below that I don't understand.
> >>
> >> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />"
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the discussion at
> >> the plenary meeting. The following is the current version of that
> >> section.
> >>
> >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />
> >>
> >> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
> access to and
>
> >> use of information and data that is comparable to that available to
> >> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
> >> individuals with disabilities have access that is timely, accurate
> >> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
> speed with
>
> >> which a person with a disability can use electronic and information
> >> technology to access information or perform a task as
> compared to an
> >> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
> >> ensures that the information and data reflects the intended meaning
> >> especially when converted into another form or media. "
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
> >> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
> solicitations.
>
> >> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
> that this
> >> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally by agency
> >> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute requirements in
> >> delivery of access to employees and
> >> the public. One option that might help address this would
> >> be to include
> >> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
> >> application) as that is
> >> where the reference to having "access to and use of information and
> >> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Diane Golden
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Baker,
> >> Robert C.
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed comparable access
> >> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
> >> appropriate to
> >> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
> >> this phrase is
> >> very unclear.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Robert
> >>

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

Norman:

I think it is history over semantics actually.

Equivalent is most often used in conjunction with "facilitation" in the
508 circles, and is limited to alternate technical solutions to a
problem as opposed to a wider set of solutions. This is historical
only. I believe equivalent access is a more accurate term myself, but
it might get confused with "equivalent facilitation".





Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Robinson,
Norman B - Washington, DC
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:22 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


Peers,

I'm not trying to pick on semantics, but would "Equivalent
Access" be a better term? I thought equivalent (warts and all) is more
descriptive of the functional requirement we are expressing.
'Comparable' brings up my discussion in the past with content developers
where they would ask for qualification. Whenever we discussed
'equivalent' they also embodied the purpose, not just the content.

I'll go back to lurking now...


Norman B. Robinson
Section 508 Coordinator
IT Governance, US Postal Service
phone: 202.268.8246


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
Golden
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:45 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back into a
definition and separating timely and efficient.

Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access Comparable access means
that individuals with disabilities have access to and use of information
and data that is timely, accurate, complete and efficient when compared
to that available to individuals without disabilities. Timely access
ensures that individuals with disabilities have information and data
available to them at the same time as individuals without disabilities.
Accurate and complete access ensures that the information and data
reflects the intended meaning especially when converted into another
form or media. Efficiency of access includes consideration of the speed
with which a person with a disability can use electronic and information
technology to access information or perform a task as compared to an
individual without disabilities.

Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns about how
this would be used or not used in solicitations?

Diane

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


Indeed.

I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for 'content' and
for 'devices'

We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language



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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
> Poehlman
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> I agree with everything said about this but the note below does not
> express this clearly ehough and comparable access is a term oft used
> when descriing side by side modalities not alternate formats?
> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with which a person

> with a disability can use electronic and information technology to
> access information or perform a task as compared to an individual
> without disabilities
>
> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being able to use
> the equipment in a comparable way.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency and is the
> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and complete from
> my recollection.
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
> Peltz Strauss
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too often, the

> information is given at a later time, when it is not as relevant, such

> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
> while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic version of

> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>
> Karen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> > Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
> > provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
> > information or devices now
> > - then people with disabilities should have access now.
> >
> > I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
> >
> > However having efficient access is also important.
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David

> >> Poehlman
> >> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated function. We

> >> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
> efficiency than
>
> >> timeleness.
> >> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this message I quote
> >> below that I don't understand.
> >>
> >> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />"
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the discussion at

> >> the plenary meeting. The following is the current version of that
> >> section.
> >>
> >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />
> >>
> >> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
> access to and
>
> >> use of information and data that is comparable to that available to

> >> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
> >> individuals with disabilities have access that is timely, accurate
> >> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
> speed with
>
> >> which a person with a disability can use electronic and information

> >> technology to access information or perform a task as
> compared to an
> >> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
> >> ensures that the information and data reflects the intended meaning

> >> especially when converted into another form or media. "
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
> >> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
> solicitations.
>
> >> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
> that this
> >> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally by agency
> >> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute requirements in
> >> delivery of access to employees and
> >> the public. One option that might help address this would
> >> be to include
> >> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
> >> application) as that is
> >> where the reference to having "access to and use of information and

> >> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Diane Golden
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Baker,

> >> Robert C.
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed comparable access

> >> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
> >> appropriate to
> >> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
> >> this phrase is
> >> very unclear.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Robert
> >>

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

i think you nailed this. i agree completely with this draft.

***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
+1.908.907.2387 mobile
skype jimtobias


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Diane Golden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:45 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back
> into a definition and separating timely and efficient.
>
> Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access Comparable
> access means that individuals with disabilities have access
> to and use of information and data that is timely, accurate,
> complete and efficient when compared to that available to
> individuals without disabilities. Timely access ensures that
> individuals with disabilities have information and data
> available to them at the same time as individuals without
> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
> information and data reflects the intended meaning especially
> when converted into another form or media. Efficiency of
> access includes consideration of the speed with which a
> person with a disability can use electronic and information
> technology to access information or perform a task as
> compared to an individual without disabilities.
>
> Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns
> about how this would be used or not used in solicitations?
>
> Diane
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
> Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> Indeed.
>
> I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for
> 'content' and for 'devices'
>
> We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
> > Poehlman
> > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
> > To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >
> > I agree with everything said about this but the note below does not
> > express this clearly ehough and comparable access is a term
> oft used
> > when descriing side by side modalities not alternate formats?
> > "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with
> which a person
> > with a disability can use electronic and information technology to
> > access information or perform a task as compared to an individual
> > without disabilities
> >
> > To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
> able to use
> > the equipment in a comparable way.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >
> >
> > I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
> and is the
> > term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
> complete from
> > my recollection.
> >
> >
> >
> > Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
> > Peltz Strauss
> > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
> > To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >
> > Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
> often, the
> > information is given at a later time, when it is not as
> relevant, such
> > as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
> > while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic
> version of
> > something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
> > watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >
> >
> > > Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
> > > provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
> > > information or devices now
> > > - then people with disabilities should have access now.
> > >
> > > I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
> > >
> > > However having efficient access is also important.
> > >
> > >
> > > Gregg
> > > -- ------------------------------
> > > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of David
> > >> Poehlman
> > >> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
> > >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> > >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> > >>
> > >> Hi All,
> > >>
> > >> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
> function. We
> > >> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
> > efficiency than
> >
> > >> timeleness.
> > >> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this
> message I quote
> > >> below that I don't understand.
> > >>
> > >> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> > >> />"
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > >> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> > >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
> > >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
> discussion at
> > >> the plenary meeting. The following is the current
> version of that
> > >> section.
> > >>
> > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> > >> />
> > >>
> > >> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
> > access to and
> >
> > >> use of information and data that is comparable to that
> available to
> > >> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
> > >> individuals with disabilities have access that is
> timely, accurate
> > >> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
> > speed with
> >
> > >> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
> information
> > >> technology to access information or perform a task as
> > compared to an
> > >> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
> > >> ensures that the information and data reflects the
> intended meaning
> > >> especially when converted into another form or media. "
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
> > >> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
> > solicitations.
> >
> > >> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
> > that this
> > >> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally
> by agency
> > >> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute
> requirements in
> > >> delivery of access to employees and
> > >> the public. One option that might help address this would
> > >> be to include
> > >> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
> > >> application) as that is
> > >> where the reference to having "access to and use of
> information and
> > >> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Diane Golden
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On
> Behalf Of Baker,
> > >> Robert C.
> > >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
> > >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
> comparable access
> > >> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
> > >> appropriate to
> > >> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
> > >> this phrase is
> > >> very unclear.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Robert
> > >>

From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

I think this language works very well.

Karen
----- Original Message -----
From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:45 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


> So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back into a
> definition
> and separating timely and efficient.
>
> Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access
> Comparable access means that individuals with disabilities have access to
> and use of information and data that is timely, accurate, complete and
> efficient when compared to that available to individuals without
> disabilities. Timely access ensures that individuals with disabilities
> have
> information and data available to them at the same time as individuals
> without disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
> information and data reflects the intended meaning especially when
> converted
> into another form or media. Efficiency of access includes consideration
> of
> the speed with which a person with a disability can use electronic and
> information technology to access information or perform a task as compared
> to an individual without disabilities.
>
> Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns about how
> this
> would be used or not used in solicitations?
>
> Diane
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
> Vanderheiden
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> Indeed.
>
> I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for 'content' and
> for
> 'devices'
>
> We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> David Poehlman
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> I agree with everything said about this but the note below
>> does not express this clearly ehough and comparable access is
>> a term oft used when descriing side by side modalities not
>> alternate formats?
>> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with which
>> a person with a disability can use electronic and information
>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>> compared to an individual without disabilities
>>
>> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
>> able to use the equipment in a comparable way.
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency and is the
>> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
>> complete from my
>> recollection.
>>
>>
>>
>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
>> Peltz Strauss
>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too often, the
>> information is given at a later time, when it is not as relevant, such
>> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or
>> captioning while
>> the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic version of
>> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
>> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>>
>> Karen
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> > Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
>> > provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
>> > information or devices now
>> > - then people with disabilities should have access now.
>> >
>> > I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
>> >
>> > However having efficient access is also important.
>> >
>> >
>> > Gregg
>> > -- ------------------------------
>> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
>> >> Poehlman
>> >> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
>> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>> >>
>> >> Hi All,
>> >>
>> >> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated function. We
>> >> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
>> efficiency than
>>
>> >> timeleness.
>> >> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this message I quote
>> >> below that I don't understand.
>> >>
>> >> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>> >> />"
>> >>
>> >> ----- Original Message -----
>> >> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> >> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
>> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the discussion at
>> >> the plenary meeting. The following is the current version of that
>> >> section.
>> >>
>> >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>> >> />
>> >>
>> >> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
>> access to and
>>
>> >> use of information and data that is comparable to that available to
>> >> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
>> >> individuals with disabilities have access that is timely, accurate
>> >> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
>> speed with
>>
>> >> which a person with a disability can use electronic and information
>> >> technology to access information or perform a task as
>> compared to an
>> >> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
>> >> ensures that the information and data reflects the intended meaning
>> >> especially when converted into another form or media. "
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
>> >> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
>> solicitations.
>>
>> >> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
>> that this
>> >> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally by agency
>> >> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute requirements in
>> >> delivery of access to employees and
>> >> the public. One option that might help address this would
>> >> be to include
>> >> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
>> >> application) as that is
>> >> where the reference to having "access to and use of information and
>> >> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Diane Golden
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Baker,
>> >> Robert C.
>> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
>> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> >> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed comparable access
>> >> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
>> >> appropriate to
>> >> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
>> >> this phrase is
>> >> very unclear.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Robert
>> >>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

I like this because I was always asked "comparable to wha?"

----- Original Message -----
From: "Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 2:22 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access



Peers,

I'm not trying to pick on semantics, but would "Equivalent
Access" be a better term? I thought equivalent (warts and all) is more
descriptive of the functional requirement we are expressing.
'Comparable' brings up my discussion in the past with content developers
where they would ask for qualification. Whenever we discussed
'equivalent' they also embodied the purpose, not just the content.

I'll go back to lurking now...


Norman B. Robinson
Section 508 Coordinator
IT Governance, US Postal Service
phone: 202.268.8246


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
Golden
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:45 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back into a
definition
and separating timely and efficient.

Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access
Comparable access means that individuals with disabilities have access
to
and use of information and data that is timely, accurate, complete and
efficient when compared to that available to individuals without
disabilities. Timely access ensures that individuals with disabilities
have
information and data available to them at the same time as individuals
without disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
information and data reflects the intended meaning especially when
converted
into another form or media. Efficiency of access includes consideration
of
the speed with which a person with a disability can use electronic and
information technology to access information or perform a task as
compared
to an individual without disabilities.

Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns about how
this
would be used or not used in solicitations?

Diane

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


Indeed.

I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for 'content' and
for
'devices'

We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language



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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> David Poehlman
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> I agree with everything said about this but the note below
> does not express this clearly ehough and comparable access is
> a term oft used when descriing side by side modalities not
> alternate formats?
> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with which
> a person with a disability can use electronic and information
> technology to access information or perform a task as
> compared to an individual without disabilities
>
> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
> able to use the equipment in a comparable way.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency and is the
> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
> complete from my
> recollection.
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
> Peltz Strauss
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too often, the
> information is given at a later time, when it is not as relevant, such
> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or
> captioning while
> the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic version of
> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>
> Karen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> > Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
> > provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
> > information or devices now
> > - then people with disabilities should have access now.
> >
> > I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
> >
> > However having efficient access is also important.
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
> >> Poehlman
> >> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated function. We
> >> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
> efficiency than
>
> >> timeleness.
> >> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this message I quote
> >> below that I don't understand.
> >>
> >> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />"
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the discussion at
> >> the plenary meeting. The following is the current version of that
> >> section.
> >>
> >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />
> >>
> >> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
> access to and
>
> >> use of information and data that is comparable to that available to
> >> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
> >> individuals with disabilities have access that is timely, accurate
> >> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
> speed with
>
> >> which a person with a disability can use electronic and information
> >> technology to access information or perform a task as
> compared to an
> >> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
> >> ensures that the information and data reflects the intended meaning
> >> especially when converted into another form or media. "
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
> >> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
> solicitations.
>
> >> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
> that this
> >> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally by agency
> >> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute requirements in
> >> delivery of access to employees and
> >> the public. One option that might help address this would
> >> be to include
> >> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
> >> application) as that is
> >> where the reference to having "access to and use of information and
> >> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Diane Golden
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Baker,
> >> Robert C.
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed comparable access
> >> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
> >> appropriate to
> >> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
> >> this phrase is
> >> very unclear.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Robert
> >>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 4:15 PM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

Hi Greg,

I've never seen "timely" used in reference to access to hardware or
software. I do see it fitting well into an alternat formats discussion but
we need another word or perhaps efficiency covers software and hardware
since part of efficiency is the time it takes to do something and that is
not timeleness but speed.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


Indeed.

I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for 'content' and for
'devices'

We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language



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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> David Poehlman
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> I agree with everything said about this but the note below
> does not express this clearly ehough and comparable access is
> a term oft used when descriing side by side modalities not
> alternate formats?
> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with which
> a person with a disability can use electronic and information
> technology to access information or perform a task as
> compared to an individual without disabilities
>
> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
> able to use the equipment in a comparable way.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency and is the
> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
> complete from my
> recollection.
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
> Peltz Strauss
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too often, the
> information is given at a later time, when it is not as relevant, such
> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or
> captioning while
> the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic version of
> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>
> Karen
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> > Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
> > provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
> > information or devices now
> > - then people with disabilities should have access now.
> >
> > I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
> >
> > However having efficient access is also important.
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
> >> Poehlman
> >> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >> Hi All,
> >>
> >> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated function. We
> >> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
> efficiency than
>
> >> timeleness.
> >> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this message I quote
> >> below that I don't understand.
> >>
> >> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />"
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the discussion at
> >> the plenary meeting. The following is the current version of that
> >> section.
> >>
> >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >> />
> >>
> >> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
> access to and
>
> >> use of information and data that is comparable to that available to
> >> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
> >> individuals with disabilities have access that is timely, accurate
> >> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
> speed with
>
> >> which a person with a disability can use electronic and information
> >> technology to access information or perform a task as
> compared to an
> >> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
> >> ensures that the information and data reflects the intended meaning
> >> especially when converted into another form or media. "
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
> >> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
> solicitations.
>
> >> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
> that this
> >> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally by agency
> >> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute requirements in
> >> delivery of access to employees and
> >> the public. One option that might help address this would
> >> be to include
> >> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
> >> application) as that is
> >> where the reference to having "access to and use of information and
> >> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Diane Golden
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Baker,
> >> Robert C.
> >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
> >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed comparable access
> >> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
> >> appropriate to
> >> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
> >> this phrase is
> >> very unclear.
> >>
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Robert
> >>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 9:00 PM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

You are right - "timely access" is most often associated with access to
information.

The place I have seen it with hardware is
1) with public terminals - and access is provided later in another way
2) with technologies in companies where access is not available until much
later but available immediately for new employees without disabilities.

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> David Poehlman
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 5:12 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> I've never seen "timely" used in reference to access to
> hardware or software. I do see it fitting well into an
> alternat formats discussion but we need another word or
> perhaps efficiency covers software and hardware since part of
> efficiency is the time it takes to do something and that is
> not timeleness but speed.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> Indeed.
>
> I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for
> 'content' and for
> 'devices'
>
> We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > David Poehlman
> > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
> > To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >
> > I agree with everything said about this but the note below
> > does not express this clearly ehough and comparable access is
> > a term oft used when descriing side by side modalities not
> > alternate formats?
> > "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with which
> > a person with a disability can use electronic and information
> > technology to access information or perform a task as
> > compared to an individual without disabilities
> >
> > To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
> > able to use the equipment in a comparable way.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >
> >
> > I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
> and is the
> > term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
> > complete from my
> > recollection.
> >
> >
> >
> > Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
> > Peltz Strauss
> > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
> > To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >
> > Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
> often, the
> > information is given at a later time, when it is not as
> relevant, such
> > as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or
> > captioning while
> > the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic version of
> > something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
> > watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >
> >
> > > Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
> > > provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
> > > information or devices now
> > > - then people with disabilities should have access now.
> > >
> > > I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
> > >
> > > However having efficient access is also important.
> > >
> > >
> > > Gregg
> > > -- ------------------------------
> > > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of David
> > >> Poehlman
> > >> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
> > >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> > >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> > >>
> > >> Hi All,
> > >>
> > >> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
> function. We
> > >> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
> > efficiency than
> >
> > >> timeleness.
> > >> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this message I quote
> > >> below that I don't understand.
> > >>
> > >> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> > >> />"
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > >> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> > >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
> > >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
> discussion at
> > >> the plenary meeting. The following is the current
> version of that
> > >> section.
> > >>
> > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> > >> />
> > >>
> > >> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
> > access to and
> >
> > >> use of information and data that is comparable to that
> available to
> > >> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
> > >> individuals with disabilities have access that is
> timely, accurate
> > >> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
> > speed with
> >
> > >> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
> information
> > >> technology to access information or perform a task as
> > compared to an
> > >> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
> > >> ensures that the information and data reflects the
> intended meaning
> > >> especially when converted into another form or media. "
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
> > >> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
> > solicitations.
> >
> > >> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
> > that this
> > >> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally
> by agency
> > >> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute requirements in
> > >> delivery of access to employees and
> > >> the public. One option that might help address this would
> > >> be to include
> > >> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
> > >> application) as that is
> > >> where the reference to having "access to and use of
> information and
> > >> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Diane Golden
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On
> Behalf Of Baker,
> > >> Robert C.
> > >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
> > >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
> comparable access
> > >> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
> > >> appropriate to
> > >> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
> > >> this phrase is
> > >> very unclear.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Robert
> > >>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Mon, Jun 04 2007 9:10 PM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

oh, we see this all the time, "let's get everything else in place and then
we'll work out the access".

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 10:58 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access



You are right - "timely access" is most often associated with access to
information.

The place I have seen it with hardware is
1) with public terminals - and access is provided later in another way
2) with technologies in companies where access is not available until much
later but available immediately for new employees without disabilities.

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> David Poehlman
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 5:12 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> Hi Greg,
>
> I've never seen "timely" used in reference to access to
> hardware or software. I do see it fitting well into an
> alternat formats discussion but we need another word or
> perhaps efficiency covers software and hardware since part of
> efficiency is the time it takes to do something and that is
> not timeleness but speed.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:31 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> Indeed.
>
> I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for
> 'content' and for
> 'devices'
>
> We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> > David Poehlman
> > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
> > To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >
> > I agree with everything said about this but the note below
> > does not express this clearly ehough and comparable access is
> > a term oft used when descriing side by side modalities not
> > alternate formats?
> > "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with which
> > a person with a disability can use electronic and information
> > technology to access information or perform a task as
> > compared to an individual without disabilities
> >
> > To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
> > able to use the equipment in a comparable way.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >
> >
> > I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
> and is the
> > term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
> > complete from my
> > recollection.
> >
> >
> >
> > Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
> > Peltz Strauss
> > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
> > To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >
> > Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
> often, the
> > information is given at a later time, when it is not as
> relevant, such
> > as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or
> > captioning while
> > the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic version of
> > something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
> > watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
> >
> > Karen
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >
> >
> > > Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
> > > provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
> > > information or devices now
> > > - then people with disabilities should have access now.
> > >
> > > I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
> > >
> > > However having efficient access is also important.
> > >
> > >
> > > Gregg
> > > -- ------------------------------
> > > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> Behalf Of David
> > >> Poehlman
> > >> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
> > >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> > >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> > >>
> > >> Hi All,
> > >>
> > >> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
> function. We
> > >> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
> > efficiency than
> >
> > >> timeleness.
> > >> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this message I quote
> > >> below that I don't understand.
> > >>
> > >> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> > >> />"
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > >> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> > >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
> > >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
> discussion at
> > >> the plenary meeting. The following is the current
> version of that
> > >> section.
> > >>
> > >> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> > >> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> > >> />
> > >>
> > >> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
> > access to and
> >
> > >> use of information and data that is comparable to that
> available to
> > >> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
> > >> individuals with disabilities have access that is
> timely, accurate
> > >> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
> > speed with
> >
> > >> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
> information
> > >> technology to access information or perform a task as
> > compared to an
> > >> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
> > >> ensures that the information and data reflects the
> intended meaning
> > >> especially when converted into another form or media. "
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
> > >> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
> > solicitations.
> >
> > >> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
> > that this
> > >> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally
> by agency
> > >> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute requirements in
> > >> delivery of access to employees and
> > >> the public. One option that might help address this would
> > >> be to include
> > >> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
> > >> application) as that is
> > >> where the reference to having "access to and use of
> information and
> > >> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Diane Golden
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On
> Behalf Of Baker,
> > >> Robert C.
> > >> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
> > >> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > >> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
> comparable access
> > >> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
> > >> appropriate to
> > >> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
> > >> this phrase is
> > >> very unclear.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> Thanks,
> > >> Robert
> > >>

From: jagbell
Date: Tue, Jun 05 2007 4:45 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

I would just add "in the least intrusive manner.

Janice
On Jun 4, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Jim Tobias wrote:

> i think you nailed this. i agree completely with this draft.
>
> ***
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> skype jimtobias
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Diane Golden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:45 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back
>> into a definition and separating timely and efficient.
>>
>> Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access Comparable
>> access means that individuals with disabilities have access
>> to and use of information and data that is timely, accurate,
>> complete and efficient when compared to that available to
>> individuals without disabilities. Timely access ensures that
>> individuals with disabilities have information and data
>> available to them at the same time as individuals without
>> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
>> information and data reflects the intended meaning especially
>> when converted into another form or media. Efficiency of
>> access includes consideration of the speed with which a
>> person with a disability can use electronic and information
>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>> compared to an individual without disabilities.
>>
>> Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns
>> about how this would be used or not used in solicitations?
>>
>> Diane
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>> Gregg Vanderheiden
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for
>> 'content' and for 'devices'
>>
>> We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language
>>
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
>>> Poehlman
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> I agree with everything said about this but the note below does not
>>> express this clearly ehough and comparable access is a term
>> oft used
>>> when descriing side by side modalities not alternate formats?
>>> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with
>> which a person
>>> with a disability can use electronic and information technology to
>>> access information or perform a task as compared to an individual
>>> without disabilities
>>>
>>> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
>> able to use
>>> the equipment in a comparable way.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
>> and is the
>>> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
>> complete from
>>> my recollection.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
>>> Peltz Strauss
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
>> often, the
>>> information is given at a later time, when it is not as
>> relevant, such
>>> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
>>> while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic
>> version of
>>> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
>>> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>>> Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
>>>> provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
>>>> information or devices now
>>>> - then people with disabilities should have access now.
>>>>
>>>> I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
>>>>
>>>> However having efficient access is also important.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
>> Behalf Of David
>>>>> Poehlman
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
>> function. We
>>>>> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
>>> efficiency than
>>>
>>>>> timeleness.
>>>>> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this
>> message I quote
>>>>> below that I don't understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />"
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
>> discussion at
>>>>> the plenary meeting. The following is the current
>> version of that
>>>>> section.
>>>>>
>>>>> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />
>>>>>
>>>>> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
>>> access to and
>>>
>>>>> use of information and data that is comparable to that
>> available to
>>>>> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
>>>>> individuals with disabilities have access that is
>> timely, accurate
>>>>> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
>>> speed with
>>>
>>>>> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
>> information
>>>>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>>> compared to an
>>>>> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
>>>>> ensures that the information and data reflects the
>> intended meaning
>>>>> especially when converted into another form or media. "
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
>>>>> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
>>> solicitations.
>>>
>>>>> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
>>> that this
>>>>> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally
>> by agency
>>>>> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute
>> requirements in
>>>>> delivery of access to employees and
>>>>> the public. One option that might help address this would
>>>>> be to include
>>>>> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
>>>>> application) as that is
>>>>> where the reference to having "access to and use of
>> information and
>>>>> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Diane Golden
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On
>> Behalf Of Baker,
>>>>> Robert C.
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
>> comparable access
>>>>> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
>>>>> appropriate to
>>>>> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
>>>>> this phrase is
>>>>> very unclear.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robert
>>>>>

From: Tom Brett
Date: Tue, Jun 05 2007 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

"Least Intrusive" seems to be something very subjective. I am not sure how
that can be measured.

Tom Brett

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David Poehlman
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:25 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access

I'm not diagreeing necessarily, but what does "least intrusive" do?
----- Original Message -----
From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


I would just add "in the least intrusive manner.

Janice
On Jun 4, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Jim Tobias wrote:

> i think you nailed this. i agree completely with this draft.
>
> ***
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> skype jimtobias
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Diane Golden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:45 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back
>> into a definition and separating timely and efficient.
>>
>> Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access Comparable
>> access means that individuals with disabilities have access
>> to and use of information and data that is timely, accurate,
>> complete and efficient when compared to that available to
>> individuals without disabilities. Timely access ensures that
>> individuals with disabilities have information and data
>> available to them at the same time as individuals without
>> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
>> information and data reflects the intended meaning especially
>> when converted into another form or media. Efficiency of
>> access includes consideration of the speed with which a
>> person with a disability can use electronic and information
>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>> compared to an individual without disabilities.
>>
>> Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns
>> about how this would be used or not used in solicitations?
>>
>> Diane
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>> Gregg Vanderheiden
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for
>> 'content' and for 'devices'
>>
>> We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language
>>
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
>>> Poehlman
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> I agree with everything said about this but the note below does not
>>> express this clearly ehough and comparable access is a term
>> oft used
>>> when descriing side by side modalities not alternate formats?
>>> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with
>> which a person
>>> with a disability can use electronic and information technology to
>>> access information or perform a task as compared to an individual
>>> without disabilities
>>>
>>> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
>> able to use
>>> the equipment in a comparable way.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
>> and is the
>>> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
>> complete from
>>> my recollection.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
>>> Peltz Strauss
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
>> often, the
>>> information is given at a later time, when it is not as
>> relevant, such
>>> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
>>> while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic
>> version of
>>> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
>>> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>>> Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
>>>> provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
>>>> information or devices now
>>>> - then people with disabilities should have access now.
>>>>
>>>> I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
>>>>
>>>> However having efficient access is also important.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
>> Behalf Of David
>>>>> Poehlman
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
>> function. We
>>>>> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
>>> efficiency than
>>>
>>>>> timeleness.
>>>>> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this
>> message I quote
>>>>> below that I don't understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />"
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
>> discussion at
>>>>> the plenary meeting. The following is the current
>> version of that
>>>>> section.
>>>>>
>>>>> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />
>>>>>
>>>>> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
>>> access to and
>>>
>>>>> use of information and data that is comparable to that
>> available to
>>>>> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
>>>>> individuals with disabilities have access that is
>> timely, accurate
>>>>> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
>>> speed with
>>>
>>>>> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
>> information
>>>>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>>> compared to an
>>>>> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
>>>>> ensures that the information and data reflects the
>> intended meaning
>>>>> especially when converted into another form or media. "
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
>>>>> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
>>> solicitations.
>>>
>>>>> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
>>> that this
>>>>> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally
>> by agency
>>>>> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute
>> requirements in
>>>>> delivery of access to employees and
>>>>> the public. One option that might help address this would
>>>>> be to include
>>>>> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
>>>>> application) as that is
>>>>> where the reference to having "access to and use of
>> information and
>>>>> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Diane Golden
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On
>> Behalf Of Baker,
>>>>> Robert C.
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
>> comparable access
>>>>> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
>>>>> appropriate to
>>>>> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
>>>>> this phrase is
>>>>> very unclear.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robert
>>>>>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Tue, Jun 05 2007 8:35 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

I'm not diagreeing necessarily, but what does "least intrusive" do?
----- Original Message -----
From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


I would just add "in the least intrusive manner.

Janice
On Jun 4, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Jim Tobias wrote:

> i think you nailed this. i agree completely with this draft.
>
> ***
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> skype jimtobias
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Diane Golden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:45 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back
>> into a definition and separating timely and efficient.
>>
>> Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access Comparable
>> access means that individuals with disabilities have access
>> to and use of information and data that is timely, accurate,
>> complete and efficient when compared to that available to
>> individuals without disabilities. Timely access ensures that
>> individuals with disabilities have information and data
>> available to them at the same time as individuals without
>> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
>> information and data reflects the intended meaning especially
>> when converted into another form or media. Efficiency of
>> access includes consideration of the speed with which a
>> person with a disability can use electronic and information
>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>> compared to an individual without disabilities.
>>
>> Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns
>> about how this would be used or not used in solicitations?
>>
>> Diane
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>> Gregg Vanderheiden
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for
>> 'content' and for 'devices'
>>
>> We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language
>>
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
>>> Poehlman
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> I agree with everything said about this but the note below does not
>>> express this clearly ehough and comparable access is a term
>> oft used
>>> when descriing side by side modalities not alternate formats?
>>> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with
>> which a person
>>> with a disability can use electronic and information technology to
>>> access information or perform a task as compared to an individual
>>> without disabilities
>>>
>>> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
>> able to use
>>> the equipment in a comparable way.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
>> and is the
>>> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
>> complete from
>>> my recollection.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
>>> Peltz Strauss
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
>> often, the
>>> information is given at a later time, when it is not as
>> relevant, such
>>> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
>>> while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic
>> version of
>>> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
>>> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>>> Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
>>>> provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
>>>> information or devices now
>>>> - then people with disabilities should have access now.
>>>>
>>>> I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
>>>>
>>>> However having efficient access is also important.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
>> Behalf Of David
>>>>> Poehlman
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
>> function. We
>>>>> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
>>> efficiency than
>>>
>>>>> timeleness.
>>>>> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this
>> message I quote
>>>>> below that I don't understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />"
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
>> discussion at
>>>>> the plenary meeting. The following is the current
>> version of that
>>>>> section.
>>>>>
>>>>> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />
>>>>>
>>>>> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
>>> access to and
>>>
>>>>> use of information and data that is comparable to that
>> available to
>>>>> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
>>>>> individuals with disabilities have access that is
>> timely, accurate
>>>>> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
>>> speed with
>>>
>>>>> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
>> information
>>>>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>>> compared to an
>>>>> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
>>>>> ensures that the information and data reflects the
>> intended meaning
>>>>> especially when converted into another form or media. "
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
>>>>> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
>>> solicitations.
>>>
>>>>> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
>>> that this
>>>>> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally
>> by agency
>>>>> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute
>> requirements in
>>>>> delivery of access to employees and
>>>>> the public. One option that might help address this would
>>>>> be to include
>>>>> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
>>>>> application) as that is
>>>>> where the reference to having "access to and use of
>> information and
>>>>> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Diane Golden
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On
>> Behalf Of Baker,
>>>>> Robert C.
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
>> comparable access
>>>>> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
>>>>> appropriate to
>>>>> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
>>>>> this phrase is
>>>>> very unclear.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robert
>>>>>

From: jagbell@nyc.rr.com
Date: Tue, Jun 05 2007 8:55 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

If two options are available and one is least obtrusive to the user and thus less stigma, that option should be used. For example, in a conference room, there is the option of using an induction loop or an FM system. An FM system requires the person with hearing loss to wear a receiver and a neckloop. An iduction loop requires the person to just switch their hearing aid to "T". Why should a person wear a device when they don't have to? This happens all the time because people don't understand induction loops. :)

Best,

Janice
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Poehlman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:24:43
To:TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


I'm not diagreeing necessarily, but what does "least intrusive" do?
----- Original Message -----
From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


I would just add "in the least intrusive manner.

Janice
On Jun 4, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Jim Tobias wrote:

> i think you nailed this. i agree completely with this draft.
>
> ***
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> skype jimtobias
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Diane Golden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:45 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back
>> into a definition and separating timely and efficient.
>>
>> Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access Comparable
>> access means that individuals with disabilities have access
>> to and use of information and data that is timely, accurate,
>> complete and efficient when compared to that available to
>> individuals without disabilities. Timely access ensures that
>> individuals with disabilities have information and data
>> available to them at the same time as individuals without
>> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
>> information and data reflects the intended meaning especially
>> when converted into another form or media. Efficiency of
>> access includes consideration of the speed with which a
>> person with a disability can use electronic and information
>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>> compared to an individual without disabilities.
>>
>> Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns
>> about how this would be used or not used in solicitations?
>>
>> Diane
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>> Gregg Vanderheiden
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for
>> 'content' and for 'devices'
>>
>> We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language
>>
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
>>> Poehlman
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> I agree with everything said about this but the note below does not
>>> express this clearly ehough and comparable access is a term
>> oft used
>>> when descriing side by side modalities not alternate formats?
>>> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with
>> which a person
>>> with a disability can use electronic and information technology to
>>> access information or perform a task as compared to an individual
>>> without disabilities
>>>
>>> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
>> able to use
>>> the equipment in a comparable way.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
>> and is the
>>> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
>> complete from
>>> my recollection.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
>>> Peltz Strauss
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
>> often, the
>>> information is given at a later time, when it is not as
>> relevant, such
>>> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
>>> while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic
>> version of
>>> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
>>> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>>> Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
>>>> provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
>>>> information or devices now
>>>> - then people with disabilities should have access now.
>>>>
>>>> I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
>>>>
>>>> However having efficient access is also important.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
>> Behalf Of David
>>>>> Poehlman
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
>> function. We
>>>>> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
>>> efficiency than
>>>
>>>>> timeleness.
>>>>> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this
>> message I quote
>>>>> below that I don't understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />"
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
>> discussion at
>>>>> the plenary meeting. The following is the current
>> version of that
>>>>> section.
>>>>>
>>>>> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />
>>>>>
>>>>> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
>>> access to and
>>>
>>>>> use of information and data that is comparable to that
>> available to
>>>>> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
>>>>> individuals with disabilities have access that is
>> timely, accurate
>>>>> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
>>> speed with
>>>
>>>>> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
>> information
>>>>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>>> compared to an
>>>>> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
>>>>> ensures that the information and data reflects the
>> intended meaning
>>>>> especially when converted into another form or media. "
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
>>>>> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
>>> solicitations.
>>>
>>>>> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
>>> that this
>>>>> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally
>> by agency
>>>>> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute
>> requirements in
>>>>> delivery of access to employees and
>>>>> the public. One option that might help address this would
>>>>> be to include
>>>>> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
>>>>> application) as that is
>>>>> where the reference to having "access to and use of
>> information and
>>>>> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Diane Golden
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On
>> Behalf Of Baker,
>>>>> Robert C.
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
>> comparable access
>>>>> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
>>>>> appropriate to
>>>>> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
>>>>> this phrase is
>>>>> very unclear.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robert
>>>>>

From: Tom Brett
Date: Tue, Jun 05 2007 9:00 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

The Government would be required to purchase 2 types of AT. Inasmuch as I
support the less intrusive wording I don't see how the government can be
forced to pay for 2 different types of reasonable accommodation. The person
with a disability has been provided with a way to participate in the
conference.

Tom Brett


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:48 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access

If two options are available and one is least obtrusive to the user and thus
less stigma, that option should be used. For example, in a conference room,
there is the option of using an induction loop or an FM system. An FM system
requires the person with hearing loss to wear a receiver and a neckloop. An
iduction loop requires the person to just switch their hearing aid to "T".
Why should a person wear a device when they don't have to? This happens all
the time because people don't understand induction loops. :)

Best,

Janice
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Poehlman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:24:43
To:TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


I'm not diagreeing necessarily, but what does "least intrusive" do?
----- Original Message -----
From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


I would just add "in the least intrusive manner.

Janice
On Jun 4, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Jim Tobias wrote:

> i think you nailed this. i agree completely with this draft.
>
> ***
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> skype jimtobias
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Diane Golden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:45 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back
>> into a definition and separating timely and efficient.
>>
>> Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access Comparable
>> access means that individuals with disabilities have access
>> to and use of information and data that is timely, accurate,
>> complete and efficient when compared to that available to
>> individuals without disabilities. Timely access ensures that
>> individuals with disabilities have information and data
>> available to them at the same time as individuals without
>> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
>> information and data reflects the intended meaning especially
>> when converted into another form or media. Efficiency of
>> access includes consideration of the speed with which a
>> person with a disability can use electronic and information
>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>> compared to an individual without disabilities.
>>
>> Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns
>> about how this would be used or not used in solicitations?
>>
>> Diane
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>> Gregg Vanderheiden
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for
>> 'content' and for 'devices'
>>
>> We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language
>>
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
>>> Poehlman
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> I agree with everything said about this but the note below does not
>>> express this clearly ehough and comparable access is a term
>> oft used
>>> when descriing side by side modalities not alternate formats?
>>> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with
>> which a person
>>> with a disability can use electronic and information technology to
>>> access information or perform a task as compared to an individual
>>> without disabilities
>>>
>>> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
>> able to use
>>> the equipment in a comparable way.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
>> and is the
>>> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
>> complete from
>>> my recollection.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
>>> Peltz Strauss
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
>> often, the
>>> information is given at a later time, when it is not as
>> relevant, such
>>> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
>>> while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic
>> version of
>>> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
>>> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>>> Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
>>>> provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
>>>> information or devices now
>>>> - then people with disabilities should have access now.
>>>>
>>>> I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
>>>>
>>>> However having efficient access is also important.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
>> Behalf Of David
>>>>> Poehlman
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
>> function. We
>>>>> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
>>> efficiency than
>>>
>>>>> timeleness.
>>>>> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this
>> message I quote
>>>>> below that I don't understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />"
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
>> discussion at
>>>>> the plenary meeting. The following is the current
>> version of that
>>>>> section.
>>>>>
>>>>> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />
>>>>>
>>>>> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
>>> access to and
>>>
>>>>> use of information and data that is comparable to that
>> available to
>>>>> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
>>>>> individuals with disabilities have access that is
>> timely, accurate
>>>>> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
>>> speed with
>>>
>>>>> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
>> information
>>>>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>>> compared to an
>>>>> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
>>>>> ensures that the information and data reflects the
>> intended meaning
>>>>> especially when converted into another form or media. "
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
>>>>> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
>>> solicitations.
>>>
>>>>> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
>>> that this
>>>>> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally
>> by agency
>>>>> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute
>> requirements in
>>>>> delivery of access to employees and
>>>>> the public. One option that might help address this would
>>>>> be to include
>>>>> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
>>>>> application) as that is
>>>>> where the reference to having "access to and use of
>> information and
>>>>> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Diane Golden
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On
>> Behalf Of Baker,
>>>>> Robert C.
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
>> comparable access
>>>>> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
>>>>> appropriate to
>>>>> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
>>>>> this phrase is
>>>>> very unclear.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robert
>>>>>

From: Tom Brett
Date: Tue, Jun 05 2007 9:05 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

Arguing from the Government's position...Why...

I as an agency have provided a reasonable accommodation that allow the
person with the disability to participate.

Tom Brett


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:50 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access

There needs to be consideration of which option has the least stigma
associated with using it. Perhaps someone else has a better phrase?

Best,

Janice
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Brett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:29:11
To:'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee' < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


"Least Intrusive" seems to be something very subjective. I am not sure how
that can be measured.

Tom Brett

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David Poehlman
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:25 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access

I'm not diagreeing necessarily, but what does "least intrusive" do?
----- Original Message -----
From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


I would just add "in the least intrusive manner.

Janice
On Jun 4, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Jim Tobias wrote:

> i think you nailed this. i agree completely with this draft.
>
> ***
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> skype jimtobias
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Diane Golden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:45 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back
>> into a definition and separating timely and efficient.
>>
>> Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access Comparable
>> access means that individuals with disabilities have access
>> to and use of information and data that is timely, accurate,
>> complete and efficient when compared to that available to
>> individuals without disabilities. Timely access ensures that
>> individuals with disabilities have information and data
>> available to them at the same time as individuals without
>> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
>> information and data reflects the intended meaning especially
>> when converted into another form or media. Efficiency of
>> access includes consideration of the speed with which a
>> person with a disability can use electronic and information
>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>> compared to an individual without disabilities.
>>
>> Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns
>> about how this would be used or not used in solicitations?
>>
>> Diane
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>> Gregg Vanderheiden
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for
>> 'content' and for 'devices'
>>
>> We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language
>>
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
>>> Poehlman
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> I agree with everything said about this but the note below does not
>>> express this clearly ehough and comparable access is a term
>> oft used
>>> when descriing side by side modalities not alternate formats?
>>> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with
>> which a person
>>> with a disability can use electronic and information technology to
>>> access information or perform a task as compared to an individual
>>> without disabilities
>>>
>>> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
>> able to use
>>> the equipment in a comparable way.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
>> and is the
>>> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
>> complete from
>>> my recollection.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
>>> Peltz Strauss
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
>> often, the
>>> information is given at a later time, when it is not as
>> relevant, such
>>> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
>>> while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic
>> version of
>>> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
>>> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>>> Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
>>>> provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
>>>> information or devices now
>>>> - then people with disabilities should have access now.
>>>>
>>>> I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
>>>>
>>>> However having efficient access is also important.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
>> Behalf Of David
>>>>> Poehlman
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
>> function. We
>>>>> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
>>> efficiency than
>>>
>>>>> timeleness.
>>>>> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this
>> message I quote
>>>>> below that I don't understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />"
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
>> discussion at
>>>>> the plenary meeting. The following is the current
>> version of that
>>>>> section.
>>>>>
>>>>> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />
>>>>>
>>>>> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
>>> access to and
>>>
>>>>> use of information and data that is comparable to that
>> available to
>>>>> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
>>>>> individuals with disabilities have access that is
>> timely, accurate
>>>>> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
>>> speed with
>>>
>>>>> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
>> information
>>>>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>>> compared to an
>>>>> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
>>>>> ensures that the information and data reflects the
>> intended meaning
>>>>> especially when converted into another form or media. "
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
>>>>> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
>>> solicitations.
>>>
>>>>> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
>>> that this
>>>>> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally
>> by agency
>>>>> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute
>> requirements in
>>>>> delivery of access to employees and
>>>>> the public. One option that might help address this would
>>>>> be to include
>>>>> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
>>>>> application) as that is
>>>>> where the reference to having "access to and use of
>> information and
>>>>> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Diane Golden
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On
>> Behalf Of Baker,
>>>>> Robert C.
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
>> comparable access
>>>>> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
>>>>> appropriate to
>>>>> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
>>>>> this phrase is
>>>>> very unclear.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robert
>>>>>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Tue, Jun 05 2007 9:10 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

is cost a factor?

----- Original Message -----
From: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


If two options are available and one is least obtrusive to the user and thus
less stigma, that option should be used. For example, in a conference room,
there is the option of using an induction loop or an FM system. An FM system
requires the person with hearing loss to wear a receiver and a neckloop. An
iduction loop requires the person to just switch their hearing aid to "T".
Why should a person wear a device when they don't have to? This happens all
the time because people don't understand induction loops. :)

Best,

Janice
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Poehlman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:24:43
To:TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


I'm not diagreeing necessarily, but what does "least intrusive" do?
----- Original Message -----
From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


I would just add "in the least intrusive manner.

Janice
On Jun 4, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Jim Tobias wrote:

> i think you nailed this. i agree completely with this draft.
>
> ***
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> skype jimtobias
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Diane Golden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:45 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back
>> into a definition and separating timely and efficient.
>>
>> Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access Comparable
>> access means that individuals with disabilities have access
>> to and use of information and data that is timely, accurate,
>> complete and efficient when compared to that available to
>> individuals without disabilities. Timely access ensures that
>> individuals with disabilities have information and data
>> available to them at the same time as individuals without
>> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
>> information and data reflects the intended meaning especially
>> when converted into another form or media. Efficiency of
>> access includes consideration of the speed with which a
>> person with a disability can use electronic and information
>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>> compared to an individual without disabilities.
>>
>> Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns
>> about how this would be used or not used in solicitations?
>>
>> Diane
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>> Gregg Vanderheiden
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for
>> 'content' and for 'devices'
>>
>> We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language
>>
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
>>> Poehlman
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> I agree with everything said about this but the note below does not
>>> express this clearly ehough and comparable access is a term
>> oft used
>>> when descriing side by side modalities not alternate formats?
>>> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with
>> which a person
>>> with a disability can use electronic and information technology to
>>> access information or perform a task as compared to an individual
>>> without disabilities
>>>
>>> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
>> able to use
>>> the equipment in a comparable way.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
>> and is the
>>> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
>> complete from
>>> my recollection.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
>>> Peltz Strauss
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
>> often, the
>>> information is given at a later time, when it is not as
>> relevant, such
>>> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
>>> while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic
>> version of
>>> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
>>> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>>> Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
>>>> provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
>>>> information or devices now
>>>> - then people with disabilities should have access now.
>>>>
>>>> I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
>>>>
>>>> However having efficient access is also important.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
>> Behalf Of David
>>>>> Poehlman
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
>> function. We
>>>>> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
>>> efficiency than
>>>
>>>>> timeleness.
>>>>> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this
>> message I quote
>>>>> below that I don't understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />"
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
>> discussion at
>>>>> the plenary meeting. The following is the current
>> version of that
>>>>> section.
>>>>>
>>>>> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />
>>>>>
>>>>> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
>>> access to and
>>>
>>>>> use of information and data that is comparable to that
>> available to
>>>>> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
>>>>> individuals with disabilities have access that is
>> timely, accurate
>>>>> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
>>> speed with
>>>
>>>>> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
>> information
>>>>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>>> compared to an
>>>>> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
>>>>> ensures that the information and data reflects the
>> intended meaning
>>>>> especially when converted into another form or media. "
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
>>>>> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
>>> solicitations.
>>>
>>>>> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
>>> that this
>>>>> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally
>> by agency
>>>>> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute
>> requirements in
>>>>> delivery of access to employees and
>>>>> the public. One option that might help address this would
>>>>> be to include
>>>>> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
>>>>> application) as that is
>>>>> where the reference to having "access to and use of
>> information and
>>>>> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Diane Golden
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On
>> Behalf Of Baker,
>>>>> Robert C.
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
>> comparable access
>>>>> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
>>>>> appropriate to
>>>>> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
>>>>> this phrase is
>>>>> very unclear.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robert
>>>>>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Tue, Jun 05 2007 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

Oh, I think obtrusion is an issue but I am not certain it bears on
accessability unless one provides better access than another? I do agree
this is a consideration but am not certain for this.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Brett" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


The Government would be required to purchase 2 types of AT. Inasmuch as I
support the less intrusive wording I don't see how the government can be
forced to pay for 2 different types of reasonable accommodation. The person
with a disability has been provided with a way to participate in the
conference.

Tom Brett


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:48 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access

If two options are available and one is least obtrusive to the user and thus
less stigma, that option should be used. For example, in a conference room,
there is the option of using an induction loop or an FM system. An FM system
requires the person with hearing loss to wear a receiver and a neckloop. An
iduction loop requires the person to just switch their hearing aid to "T".
Why should a person wear a device when they don't have to? This happens all
the time because people don't understand induction loops. :)

Best,

Janice
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Poehlman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:24:43
To:TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


I'm not diagreeing necessarily, but what does "least intrusive" do?
----- Original Message -----
From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


I would just add "in the least intrusive manner.

Janice
On Jun 4, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Jim Tobias wrote:

> i think you nailed this. i agree completely with this draft.
>
> ***
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> skype jimtobias
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Diane Golden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:45 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back
>> into a definition and separating timely and efficient.
>>
>> Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access Comparable
>> access means that individuals with disabilities have access
>> to and use of information and data that is timely, accurate,
>> complete and efficient when compared to that available to
>> individuals without disabilities. Timely access ensures that
>> individuals with disabilities have information and data
>> available to them at the same time as individuals without
>> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
>> information and data reflects the intended meaning especially
>> when converted into another form or media. Efficiency of
>> access includes consideration of the speed with which a
>> person with a disability can use electronic and information
>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>> compared to an individual without disabilities.
>>
>> Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns
>> about how this would be used or not used in solicitations?
>>
>> Diane
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>> Gregg Vanderheiden
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for
>> 'content' and for 'devices'
>>
>> We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language
>>
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
>>> Poehlman
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> I agree with everything said about this but the note below does not
>>> express this clearly ehough and comparable access is a term
>> oft used
>>> when descriing side by side modalities not alternate formats?
>>> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with
>> which a person
>>> with a disability can use electronic and information technology to
>>> access information or perform a task as compared to an individual
>>> without disabilities
>>>
>>> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
>> able to use
>>> the equipment in a comparable way.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
>> and is the
>>> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
>> complete from
>>> my recollection.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
>>> Peltz Strauss
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
>> often, the
>>> information is given at a later time, when it is not as
>> relevant, such
>>> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
>>> while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic
>> version of
>>> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
>>> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>>> Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
>>>> provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
>>>> information or devices now
>>>> - then people with disabilities should have access now.
>>>>
>>>> I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
>>>>
>>>> However having efficient access is also important.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
>> Behalf Of David
>>>>> Poehlman
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
>> function. We
>>>>> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
>>> efficiency than
>>>
>>>>> timeleness.
>>>>> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this
>> message I quote
>>>>> below that I don't understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />"
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
>> discussion at
>>>>> the plenary meeting. The following is the current
>> version of that
>>>>> section.
>>>>>
>>>>> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />
>>>>>
>>>>> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
>>> access to and
>>>
>>>>> use of information and data that is comparable to that
>> available to
>>>>> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
>>>>> individuals with disabilities have access that is
>> timely, accurate
>>>>> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
>>> speed with
>>>
>>>>> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
>> information
>>>>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>>> compared to an
>>>>> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
>>>>> ensures that the information and data reflects the
>> intended meaning
>>>>> especially when converted into another form or media. "
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
>>>>> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
>>> solicitations.
>>>
>>>>> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
>>> that this
>>>>> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally
>> by agency
>>>>> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute
>> requirements in
>>>>> delivery of access to employees and
>>>>> the public. One option that might help address this would
>>>>> be to include
>>>>> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
>>>>> application) as that is
>>>>> where the reference to having "access to and use of
>> information and
>>>>> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Diane Golden
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On
>> Behalf Of Baker,
>>>>> Robert C.
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
>> comparable access
>>>>> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
>>>>> appropriate to
>>>>> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
>>>>> this phrase is
>>>>> very unclear.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robert
>>>>>

From: jagbell@nyc.rr.com
Date: Tue, Jun 05 2007 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

There needs to be consideration of which option has the least stigma associated with using it. Perhaps someone else has a better phrase?

Best,

Janice
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Brett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:29:11
To:'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee' < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


"Least Intrusive" seems to be something very subjective. I am not sure how
that can be measured.

Tom Brett

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David Poehlman
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:25 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access

I'm not diagreeing necessarily, but what does "least intrusive" do?
----- Original Message -----
From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


I would just add "in the least intrusive manner.

Janice
On Jun 4, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Jim Tobias wrote:

> i think you nailed this. i agree completely with this draft.
>
> ***
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> skype jimtobias
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Diane Golden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:45 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back
>> into a definition and separating timely and efficient.
>>
>> Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access Comparable
>> access means that individuals with disabilities have access
>> to and use of information and data that is timely, accurate,
>> complete and efficient when compared to that available to
>> individuals without disabilities. Timely access ensures that
>> individuals with disabilities have information and data
>> available to them at the same time as individuals without
>> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
>> information and data reflects the intended meaning especially
>> when converted into another form or media. Efficiency of
>> access includes consideration of the speed with which a
>> person with a disability can use electronic and information
>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>> compared to an individual without disabilities.
>>
>> Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns
>> about how this would be used or not used in solicitations?
>>
>> Diane
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>> Gregg Vanderheiden
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for
>> 'content' and for 'devices'
>>
>> We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language
>>
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
>>> Poehlman
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> I agree with everything said about this but the note below does not
>>> express this clearly ehough and comparable access is a term
>> oft used
>>> when descriing side by side modalities not alternate formats?
>>> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with
>> which a person
>>> with a disability can use electronic and information technology to
>>> access information or perform a task as compared to an individual
>>> without disabilities
>>>
>>> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
>> able to use
>>> the equipment in a comparable way.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
>> and is the
>>> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
>> complete from
>>> my recollection.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
>>> Peltz Strauss
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
>> often, the
>>> information is given at a later time, when it is not as
>> relevant, such
>>> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
>>> while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic
>> version of
>>> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
>>> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>>> Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
>>>> provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
>>>> information or devices now
>>>> - then people with disabilities should have access now.
>>>>
>>>> I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
>>>>
>>>> However having efficient access is also important.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
>> Behalf Of David
>>>>> Poehlman
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
>> function. We
>>>>> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
>>> efficiency than
>>>
>>>>> timeleness.
>>>>> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this
>> message I quote
>>>>> below that I don't understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />"
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
>> discussion at
>>>>> the plenary meeting. The following is the current
>> version of that
>>>>> section.
>>>>>
>>>>> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />
>>>>>
>>>>> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
>>> access to and
>>>
>>>>> use of information and data that is comparable to that
>> available to
>>>>> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
>>>>> individuals with disabilities have access that is
>> timely, accurate
>>>>> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
>>> speed with
>>>
>>>>> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
>> information
>>>>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>>> compared to an
>>>>> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
>>>>> ensures that the information and data reflects the
>> intended meaning
>>>>> especially when converted into another form or media. "
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
>>>>> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
>>> solicitations.
>>>
>>>>> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
>>> that this
>>>>> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally
>> by agency
>>>>> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute
>> requirements in
>>>>> delivery of access to employees and
>>>>> the public. One option that might help address this would
>>>>> be to include
>>>>> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
>>>>> application) as that is
>>>>> where the reference to having "access to and use of
>> information and
>>>>> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Diane Golden
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On
>> Behalf Of Baker,
>>>>> Robert C.
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
>> comparable access
>>>>> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
>>>>> appropriate to
>>>>> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
>>>>> this phrase is
>>>>> very unclear.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robert
>>>>>

From: Tom Brett
Date: Tue, Jun 05 2007 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

It really is not a 508 issue but is a Section 504 issue. Providing
equipment is not part of Section 508. That would fall under Section 504 and
ADA. The government and courts would ask if the individual has been
reasonably accommodated. If one type of AT provides better access than the
other that you could argue that using the lesser of the 2 AT types would not
provide a reasonable solution.

The definition of comparable access is being clarified to insure that when
members of the public with disabilities or Federal employees with
disabilities access government information and data they can perform this
access and use the information and data in a manner that is timely,
accurate, complete and efficient when compared to that access available to
individuals without disabilities.

Section 508 covers Electronic and Information Technology. The comparable
access definition basically says that you need to design your systems in a
manner that allows a person with disabilities to use the information in is
timely, accurate, complete and efficient way.

The use of the AT is covered in a different part of Rehab Act and I would
think that is beyond the scope of this committee.

Tom Brett


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David Poehlman
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 11:10 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access

Oh, I think obtrusion is an issue but I am not certain it bears on
accessability unless one provides better access than another? I do agree
this is a consideration but am not certain for this.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Brett" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:57 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


The Government would be required to purchase 2 types of AT. Inasmuch as I
support the less intrusive wording I don't see how the government can be
forced to pay for 2 different types of reasonable accommodation. The person
with a disability has been provided with a way to participate in the
conference.

Tom Brett


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:48 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access

If two options are available and one is least obtrusive to the user and thus
less stigma, that option should be used. For example, in a conference room,
there is the option of using an induction loop or an FM system. An FM system
requires the person with hearing loss to wear a receiver and a neckloop. An
iduction loop requires the person to just switch their hearing aid to "T".
Why should a person wear a device when they don't have to? This happens all
the time because people don't understand induction loops. :)

Best,

Janice
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Poehlman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:24:43
To:TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


I'm not diagreeing necessarily, but what does "least intrusive" do?
----- Original Message -----
From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


I would just add "in the least intrusive manner.

Janice
On Jun 4, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Jim Tobias wrote:

> i think you nailed this. i agree completely with this draft.
>
> ***
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> skype jimtobias
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Diane Golden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:45 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back
>> into a definition and separating timely and efficient.
>>
>> Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access Comparable
>> access means that individuals with disabilities have access
>> to and use of information and data that is timely, accurate,
>> complete and efficient when compared to that available to
>> individuals without disabilities. Timely access ensures that
>> individuals with disabilities have information and data
>> available to them at the same time as individuals without
>> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
>> information and data reflects the intended meaning especially
>> when converted into another form or media. Efficiency of
>> access includes consideration of the speed with which a
>> person with a disability can use electronic and information
>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>> compared to an individual without disabilities.
>>
>> Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns
>> about how this would be used or not used in solicitations?
>>
>> Diane
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>> Gregg Vanderheiden
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for
>> 'content' and for 'devices'
>>
>> We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language
>>
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
>>> Poehlman
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> I agree with everything said about this but the note below does not
>>> express this clearly ehough and comparable access is a term
>> oft used
>>> when descriing side by side modalities not alternate formats?
>>> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with
>> which a person
>>> with a disability can use electronic and information technology to
>>> access information or perform a task as compared to an individual
>>> without disabilities
>>>
>>> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
>> able to use
>>> the equipment in a comparable way.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
>> and is the
>>> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
>> complete from
>>> my recollection.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
>>> Peltz Strauss
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
>> often, the
>>> information is given at a later time, when it is not as
>> relevant, such
>>> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
>>> while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic
>> version of
>>> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
>>> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>>> Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
>>>> provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
>>>> information or devices now
>>>> - then people with disabilities should have access now.
>>>>
>>>> I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
>>>>
>>>> However having efficient access is also important.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
>> Behalf Of David
>>>>> Poehlman
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
>> function. We
>>>>> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
>>> efficiency than
>>>
>>>>> timeleness.
>>>>> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this
>> message I quote
>>>>> below that I don't understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />"
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
>> discussion at
>>>>> the plenary meeting. The following is the current
>> version of that
>>>>> section.
>>>>>
>>>>> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />
>>>>>
>>>>> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
>>> access to and
>>>
>>>>> use of information and data that is comparable to that
>> available to
>>>>> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
>>>>> individuals with disabilities have access that is
>> timely, accurate
>>>>> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
>>> speed with
>>>
>>>>> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
>> information
>>>>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>>> compared to an
>>>>> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
>>>>> ensures that the information and data reflects the
>> intended meaning
>>>>> especially when converted into another form or media. "
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
>>>>> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
>>> solicitations.
>>>
>>>>> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
>>> that this
>>>>> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally
>> by agency
>>>>> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute
>> requirements in
>>>>> delivery of access to employees and
>>>>> the public. One option that might help address this would
>>>>> be to include
>>>>> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
>>>>> application) as that is
>>>>> where the reference to having "access to and use of
>> information and
>>>>> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Diane Golden
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On
>> Behalf Of Baker,
>>>>> Robert C.
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
>> comparable access
>>>>> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
>>>>> appropriate to
>>>>> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
>>>>> this phrase is
>>>>> very unclear.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robert
>>>>>

From: Diane Golden
Date: Tue, Jun 05 2007 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

It would take a change in statute or regulatory language in Section 504 and/or the ADA and/or litigation history pursuant to 504/ADA to add "least obstrusive" as a required part of determining "reasonable accommodation" or "auxilary aid or service".

Diane


----- Original Message ----
From: Tom Brett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2007 9:57:08 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


The Government would be required to purchase 2 types of AT. Inasmuch as I
support the less intrusive wording I don't see how the government can be
forced to pay for 2 different types of reasonable accommodation. The person
with a disability has been provided with a way to participate in the
conference.

Tom Brett


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:48 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access

If two options are available and one is least obtrusive to the user and thus
less stigma, that option should be used. For example, in a conference room,
there is the option of using an induction loop or an FM system. An FM system
requires the person with hearing loss to wear a receiver and a neckloop. An
iduction loop requires the person to just switch their hearing aid to "T".
Why should a person wear a device when they don't have to? This happens all
the time because people don't understand induction loops. :)

Best,

Janice
Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Poehlman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:24:43
To:TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


I'm not diagreeing necessarily, but what does "least intrusive" do?
----- Original Message -----
From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:45 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


I would just add "in the least intrusive manner.

Janice
On Jun 4, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Jim Tobias wrote:

> i think you nailed this. i agree completely with this draft.
>
> ***
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> skype jimtobias
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Diane Golden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:45 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back
>> into a definition and separating timely and efficient.
>>
>> Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access Comparable
>> access means that individuals with disabilities have access
>> to and use of information and data that is timely, accurate,
>> complete and efficient when compared to that available to
>> individuals without disabilities. Timely access ensures that
>> individuals with disabilities have information and data
>> available to them at the same time as individuals without
>> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
>> information and data reflects the intended meaning especially
>> when converted into another form or media. Efficiency of
>> access includes consideration of the speed with which a
>> person with a disability can use electronic and information
>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>> compared to an individual without disabilities.
>>
>> Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns
>> about how this would be used or not used in solicitations?
>>
>> Diane
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>> Gregg Vanderheiden
>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> Indeed.
>>
>> I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for
>> 'content' and for 'devices'
>>
>> We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language
>>
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
>>> Poehlman
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> I agree with everything said about this but the note below does not
>>> express this clearly ehough and comparable access is a term
>> oft used
>>> when descriing side by side modalities not alternate formats?
>>> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with
>> which a person
>>> with a disability can use electronic and information technology to
>>> access information or perform a task as compared to an individual
>>> without disabilities
>>>
>>> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
>> able to use
>>> the equipment in a comparable way.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
>> and is the
>>> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
>> complete from
>>> my recollection.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Karen
>>> Peltz Strauss
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
>> often, the
>>> information is given at a later time, when it is not as
>> relevant, such
>>> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
>>> while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic
>> version of
>>> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
>>> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the government.
>>>
>>> Karen
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>
>>>
>>>> Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
>>>> provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
>>>> information or devices now
>>>> - then people with disabilities should have access now.
>>>>
>>>> I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
>>>>
>>>> However having efficient access is also important.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
>> Behalf Of David
>>>>> Poehlman
>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
>> function. We
>>>>> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
>>> efficiency than
>>>
>>>>> timeleness.
>>>>> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this
>> message I quote
>>>>> below that I don't understand.
>>>>>
>>>>> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />"
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
>> discussion at
>>>>> the plenary meeting. The following is the current
>> version of that
>>>>> section.
>>>>>
>>>>> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>> />
>>>>>
>>>>> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
>>> access to and
>>>
>>>>> use of information and data that is comparable to that
>> available to
>>>>> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
>>>>> individuals with disabilities have access that is
>> timely, accurate
>>>>> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
>>> speed with
>>>
>>>>> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
>> information
>>>>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>>> compared to an
>>>>> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
>>>>> ensures that the information and data reflects the
>> intended meaning
>>>>> especially when converted into another form or media. "
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
>>>>> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
>>> solicitations.
>>>
>>>>> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
>>> that this
>>>>> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally
>> by agency
>>>>> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute
>> requirements in
>>>>> delivery of access to employees and
>>>>> the public. One option that might help address this would
>>>>> be to include
>>>>> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
>>>>> application) as that is
>>>>> where the reference to having "access to and use of
>> information and
>>>>> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Diane Golden
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On
>> Behalf Of Baker,
>>>>> Robert C.
>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
>> comparable access
>>>>> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
>>>>> appropriate to
>>>>> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
>>>>> this phrase is
>>>>> very unclear.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Robert
>>>>>

From: jagbell
Date: Tue, Jun 05 2007 7:05 PM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

I disagree. Why is this any different from any other provision. The
whole point of the regs is to assist people. Many people will not
use anything that stigmatizes them. This is an important
consideration and should not be dismissed lightly. Why would anyone
want to use anything that draws attention to them when there is an
alternative that does not.:) We need to remember the point of the
regs. :)

Janice



On Jun 5, 2007, at 6:41 PM, Diane Golden wrote:

> It would take a change in statute or regulatory language in Section
> 504 and/or the ADA and/or litigation history pursuant to 504/ADA to
> add "least obstrusive" as a required part of determining
> "reasonable accommodation" or "auxilary aid or service".
>
> Diane
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Tom Brett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee <teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2007 9:57:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> The Government would be required to purchase 2 types of AT.
> Inasmuch as I
> support the less intrusive wording I don't see how the government
> can be
> forced to pay for 2 different types of reasonable accommodation.
> The person
> with a disability has been provided with a way to participate in the
> conference.
>
> Tom Brett
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:48 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> If two options are available and one is least obtrusive to the user
> and thus
> less stigma, that option should be used. For example, in a
> conference room,
> there is the option of using an induction loop or an FM system. An
> FM system
> requires the person with hearing loss to wear a receiver and a
> neckloop. An
> iduction loop requires the person to just switch their hearing aid
> to "T".
> Why should a person wear a device when they don't have to? This
> happens all
> the time because people don't understand induction loops. :)
>
> Best,
>
> Janice
> Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Poehlman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:24:43
> To:TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> I'm not diagreeing necessarily, but what does "least intrusive" do?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> I would just add "in the least intrusive manner.
>
> Janice
> On Jun 4, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Jim Tobias wrote:
>
> > i think you nailed this. i agree completely with this draft.
> >
> > ***
> > Jim Tobias
> > Inclusive Technologies
> > +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> > +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> > skype jimtobias
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Diane Golden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> >> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:45 PM
> >> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >> So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back
> >> into a definition and separating timely and efficient.
> >>
> >> Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access Comparable
> >> access means that individuals with disabilities have access
> >> to and use of information and data that is timely, accurate,
> >> complete and efficient when compared to that available to
> >> individuals without disabilities. Timely access ensures that
> >> individuals with disabilities have information and data
> >> available to them at the same time as individuals without
> >> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
> >> information and data reflects the intended meaning especially
> >> when converted into another form or media. Efficiency of
> >> access includes consideration of the speed with which a
> >> person with a disability can use electronic and information
> >> technology to access information or perform a task as
> >> compared to an individual without disabilities.
> >>
> >> Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns
> >> about how this would be used or not used in solicitations?
> >>
> >> Diane
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
> >> Gregg Vanderheiden
> >> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
> >> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >> Indeed.
> >>
> >> I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for
> >> 'content' and for 'devices'
> >>
> >> We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Gregg
> >> -- ------------------------------
> >> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> David
> >>> Poehlman
> >>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
> >>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>>
> >>> I agree with everything said about this but the note below does
> not
> >>> express this clearly ehough and comparable access is a term
> >> oft used
> >>> when descriing side by side modalities not alternate formats?
> >>> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with
> >> which a person
> >>> with a disability can use electronic and information technology to
> >>> access information or perform a task as compared to an individual
> >>> without disabilities
> >>>
> >>> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
> >> able to use
> >>> the equipment in a comparable way.
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
> >> and is the
> >>> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
> >> complete from
> >>> my recollection.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Karen
> >>> Peltz Strauss
> >>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
> >>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>>
> >>> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
> >> often, the
> >>> information is given at a later time, when it is not as
> >> relevant, such
> >>> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
> >>> while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic
> >> version of
> >>> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
> >>> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the
> government.
> >>>
> >>> Karen
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
> >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
> >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
> >>>> provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
> >>>> information or devices now
> >>>> - then people with disabilities should have access now.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
> >>>>
> >>>> However having efficient access is also important.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Gregg
> >>>> -- ------------------------------
> >>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> >> Behalf Of David
> >>>>> Poehlman
> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
> >>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi All,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
> >> function. We
> >>>>> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
> >>> efficiency than
> >>>
> >>>>> timeleness.
> >>>>> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this
> >> message I quote
> >>>>> below that I don't understand.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >>>>> />"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> >>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
> >> discussion at
> >>>>> the plenary meeting. The following is the current
> >> version of that
> >>>>> section.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >>>>> />
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
> >>> access to and
> >>>
> >>>>> use of information and data that is comparable to that
> >> available to
> >>>>> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
> >>>>> individuals with disabilities have access that is
> >> timely, accurate
> >>>>> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
> >>> speed with
> >>>
> >>>>> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
> >> information
> >>>>> technology to access information or perform a task as
> >>> compared to an
> >>>>> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
> >>>>> ensures that the information and data reflects the
> >> intended meaning
> >>>>> especially when converted into another form or media. "
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
> >>>>> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
> >>> solicitations.
> >>>
> >>>>> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
> >>> that this
> >>>>> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally
> >> by agency
> >>>>> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute
> >> requirements in
> >>>>> delivery of access to employees and
> >>>>> the public. One option that might help address this would
> >>>>> be to include
> >>>>> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
> >>>>> application) as that is
> >>>>> where the reference to having "access to and use of
> >> information and
> >>>>> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Diane Golden
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On
> >> Behalf Of Baker,
> >>>>> Robert C.
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
> >>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
> >> comparable access
> >>>>> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
> >>>>> appropriate to
> >>>>> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
> >>>>> this phrase is
> >>>>> very unclear.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Robert
> >>>>>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Wed, Jun 06 2007 6:20 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

Stigmatism is not a barrier to *access*. I use a talking computer. would it
be more appropriate for me to have someone whispering in my ear? Suppose it
were the only alternative and it was deemed as good or superior to a talking
computer? I agree this is an issue, it though does not bear on whether
something is accessible.

Someone's choice is a willfull exercise and must not be confused with real
barriers to accessibility such as no access at all choice notwithstanding.
What in the law requires a providor to choose something which is not
stigmatic?

----- Original Message -----
From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access


I disagree. Why is this any different from any other provision. The
whole point of the regs is to assist people. Many people will not
use anything that stigmatizes them. This is an important
consideration and should not be dismissed lightly. Why would anyone
want to use anything that draws attention to them when there is an
alternative that does not.:) We need to remember the point of the
regs. :)

Janice



On Jun 5, 2007, at 6:41 PM, Diane Golden wrote:

> It would take a change in statute or regulatory language in Section
> 504 and/or the ADA and/or litigation history pursuant to 504/ADA to
> add "least obstrusive" as a required part of determining
> "reasonable accommodation" or "auxilary aid or service".
>
> Diane
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Tom Brett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee <teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2007 9:57:08 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> The Government would be required to purchase 2 types of AT.
> Inasmuch as I
> support the less intrusive wording I don't see how the government
> can be
> forced to pay for 2 different types of reasonable accommodation.
> The person
> with a disability has been provided with a way to participate in the
> conference.
>
> Tom Brett
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:48 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
> If two options are available and one is least obtrusive to the user
> and thus
> less stigma, that option should be used. For example, in a
> conference room,
> there is the option of using an induction loop or an FM system. An
> FM system
> requires the person with hearing loss to wear a receiver and a
> neckloop. An
> iduction loop requires the person to just switch their hearing aid
> to "T".
> Why should a person wear a device when they don't have to? This
> happens all
> the time because people don't understand induction loops. :)
>
> Best,
>
> Janice
> Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Poehlman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:24:43
> To:TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> I'm not diagreeing necessarily, but what does "least intrusive" do?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> I would just add "in the least intrusive manner.
>
> Janice
> On Jun 4, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Jim Tobias wrote:
>
> > i think you nailed this. i agree completely with this draft.
> >
> > ***
> > Jim Tobias
> > Inclusive Technologies
> > +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> > +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> > skype jimtobias
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Diane Golden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> >> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:45 PM
> >> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >> So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back
> >> into a definition and separating timely and efficient.
> >>
> >> Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access Comparable
> >> access means that individuals with disabilities have access
> >> to and use of information and data that is timely, accurate,
> >> complete and efficient when compared to that available to
> >> individuals without disabilities. Timely access ensures that
> >> individuals with disabilities have information and data
> >> available to them at the same time as individuals without
> >> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
> >> information and data reflects the intended meaning especially
> >> when converted into another form or media. Efficiency of
> >> access includes consideration of the speed with which a
> >> person with a disability can use electronic and information
> >> technology to access information or perform a task as
> >> compared to an individual without disabilities.
> >>
> >> Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns
> >> about how this would be used or not used in solicitations?
> >>
> >> Diane
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
> >> Gregg Vanderheiden
> >> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
> >> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>
> >>
> >> Indeed.
> >>
> >> I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for
> >> 'content' and for 'devices'
> >>
> >> We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Gregg
> >> -- ------------------------------
> >> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> David
> >>> Poehlman
> >>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
> >>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>>
> >>> I agree with everything said about this but the note below does
> not
> >>> express this clearly ehough and comparable access is a term
> >> oft used
> >>> when descriing side by side modalities not alternate formats?
> >>> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with
> >> which a person
> >>> with a disability can use electronic and information technology to
> >>> access information or perform a task as compared to an individual
> >>> without disabilities
> >>>
> >>> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
> >> able to use
> >>> the equipment in a comparable way.
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
> >> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
> >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
> >> and is the
> >>> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
> >> complete from
> >>> my recollection.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Karen
> >>> Peltz Strauss
> >>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
> >>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>>
> >>> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
> >> often, the
> >>> information is given at a later time, when it is not as
> >> relevant, such
> >>> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
> >>> while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic
> >> version of
> >>> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
> >>> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the
> government.
> >>>
> >>> Karen
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
> >>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
> >>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
> >>>> provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
> >>>> information or devices now
> >>>> - then people with disabilities should have access now.
> >>>>
> >>>> I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
> >>>>
> >>>> However having efficient access is also important.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Gregg
> >>>> -- ------------------------------
> >>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
> >> Behalf Of David
> >>>>> Poehlman
> >>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
> >>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi All,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
> >> function. We
> >>>>> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
> >>> efficiency than
> >>>
> >>>>> timeleness.
> >>>>> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this
> >> message I quote
> >>>>> below that I don't understand.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >>>>> />"
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> >>>>> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> >>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
> >> discussion at
> >>>>> the plenary meeting. The following is the current
> >> version of that
> >>>>> section.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
> >>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
> >>>>> />
> >>>>>
> >>>>> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
> >>> access to and
> >>>
> >>>>> use of information and data that is comparable to that
> >> available to
> >>>>> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
> >>>>> individuals with disabilities have access that is
> >> timely, accurate
> >>>>> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
> >>> speed with
> >>>
> >>>>> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
> >> information
> >>>>> technology to access information or perform a task as
> >>> compared to an
> >>>>> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
> >>>>> ensures that the information and data reflects the
> >> intended meaning
> >>>>> especially when converted into another form or media. "
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
> >>>>> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
> >>> solicitations.
> >>>
> >>>>> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
> >>> that this
> >>>>> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally
> >> by agency
> >>>>> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute
> >> requirements in
> >>>>> delivery of access to employees and
> >>>>> the public. One option that might help address this would
> >>>>> be to include
> >>>>> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
> >>>>> application) as that is
> >>>>> where the reference to having "access to and use of
> >> information and
> >>>>> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Diane Golden
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On
> >> Behalf Of Baker,
> >>>>> Robert C.
> >>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
> >>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >>>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
> >> comparable access
> >>>>> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
> >>>>> appropriate to
> >>>>> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
> >>>>> this phrase is
> >>>>> very unclear.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>> Robert
> >>>>>

From: jagbell
Date: Wed, Jun 06 2007 6:30 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

Why not? Just because it hasn't doesn't mean it shouldn't.:)



On Jun 6, 2007, at 8:17 AM, David Poehlman wrote:

> Stigmatism is not a barrier to *access*. I use a talking computer.
> would it
> be more appropriate for me to have someone whispering in my ear?
> Suppose it
> were the only alternative and it was deemed as good or superior to
> a talking
> computer? I agree this is an issue, it though does not bear on
> whether
> something is accessible.
>
> Someone's choice is a willfull exercise and must not be confused
> with real
> barriers to accessibility such as no access at all choice
> notwithstanding.
> What in the law requires a providor to choose something which is not
> stigmatic?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 9:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> I disagree. Why is this any different from any other provision. The
> whole point of the regs is to assist people. Many people will not
> use anything that stigmatizes them. This is an important
> consideration and should not be dismissed lightly. Why would anyone
> want to use anything that draws attention to them when there is an
> alternative that does not.:) We need to remember the point of the
> regs. :)
>
> Janice
>
>
>
> On Jun 5, 2007, at 6:41 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>
>> It would take a change in statute or regulatory language in Section
>> 504 and/or the ADA and/or litigation history pursuant to 504/ADA to
>> add "least obstrusive" as a required part of determining
>> "reasonable accommodation" or "auxilary aid or service".
>>
>> Diane
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Tom Brett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee <teitac-
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2007 9:57:08 AM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> The Government would be required to purchase 2 types of AT.
>> Inasmuch as I
>> support the less intrusive wording I don't see how the government
>> can be
>> forced to pay for 2 different types of reasonable accommodation.
>> The person
>> with a disability has been provided with a way to participate in the
>> conference.
>>
>> Tom Brett
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:48 AM
>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> If two options are available and one is least obtrusive to the user
>> and thus
>> less stigma, that option should be used. For example, in a
>> conference room,
>> there is the option of using an induction loop or an FM system. An
>> FM system
>> requires the person with hearing loss to wear a receiver and a
>> neckloop. An
>> iduction loop requires the person to just switch their hearing aid
>> to "T".
>> Why should a person wear a device when they don't have to? This
>> happens all
>> the time because people don't understand induction loops. :)
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Janice
>> Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Poehlman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>
>> Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:24:43
>> To:TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> I'm not diagreeing necessarily, but what does "least intrusive" do?
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:45 AM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> I would just add "in the least intrusive manner.
>>
>> Janice
>> On Jun 4, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Jim Tobias wrote:
>>
>>> i think you nailed this. i agree completely with this draft.
>>>
>>> ***
>>> Jim Tobias
>>> Inclusive Technologies
>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
>>> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
>>> skype jimtobias
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Diane Golden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:45 PM
>>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>
>>>> So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back
>>>> into a definition and separating timely and efficient.
>>>>
>>>> Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access Comparable
>>>> access means that individuals with disabilities have access
>>>> to and use of information and data that is timely, accurate,
>>>> complete and efficient when compared to that available to
>>>> individuals without disabilities. Timely access ensures that
>>>> individuals with disabilities have information and data
>>>> available to them at the same time as individuals without
>>>> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
>>>> information and data reflects the intended meaning especially
>>>> when converted into another form or media. Efficiency of
>>>> access includes consideration of the speed with which a
>>>> person with a disability can use electronic and information
>>>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>>>> compared to an individual without disabilities.
>>>>
>>>> Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns
>>>> about how this would be used or not used in solicitations?
>>>>
>>>> Diane
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>>>> Gregg Vanderheiden
>>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
>>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>>
>>>> I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for
>>>> 'content' and for 'devices'
>>>>
>>>> We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> David
>>>>> Poehlman
>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
>>>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with everything said about this but the note below does
>> not
>>>>> express this clearly ehough and comparable access is a term
>>>> oft used
>>>>> when descriing side by side modalities not alternate formats?
>>>>> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with
>>>> which a person
>>>>> with a disability can use electronic and information technology to
>>>>> access information or perform a task as compared to an individual
>>>>> without disabilities
>>>>>
>>>>> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
>>>> able to use
>>>>> the equipment in a comparable way.
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
>>>> and is the
>>>>> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
>>>> complete from
>>>>> my recollection.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> Karen
>>>>> Peltz Strauss
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
>>>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
>>>> often, the
>>>>> information is given at a later time, when it is not as
>>>> relevant, such
>>>>> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
>>>>> while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic
>>>> version of
>>>>> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
>>>>> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the
>> government.
>>>>>
>>>>> Karen
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
>>>>>> provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
>>>>>> information or devices now
>>>>>> - then people with disabilities should have access now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However having efficient access is also important.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gregg
>>>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
>>>> Behalf Of David
>>>>>>> Poehlman
>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
>>>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
>>>> function. We
>>>>>>> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
>>>>> efficiency than
>>>>>
>>>>>>> timeleness.
>>>>>>> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this
>>>> message I quote
>>>>>>> below that I don't understand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>>>> />"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
>>>> discussion at
>>>>>>> the plenary meeting. The following is the current
>>>> version of that
>>>>>>> section.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>>>> />
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
>>>>> access to and
>>>>>
>>>>>>> use of information and data that is comparable to that
>>>> available to
>>>>>>> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
>>>>>>> individuals with disabilities have access that is
>>>> timely, accurate
>>>>>>> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
>>>>> speed with
>>>>>
>>>>>>> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
>>>> information
>>>>>>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>>>>> compared to an
>>>>>>> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
>>>>>>> ensures that the information and data reflects the
>>>> intended meaning
>>>>>>> especially when converted into another form or media. "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
>>>>>>> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
>>>>> solicitations.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
>>>>> that this
>>>>>>> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally
>>>> by agency
>>>>>>> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute
>>>> requirements in
>>>>>>> delivery of access to employees and
>>>>>>> the public. One option that might help address this would
>>>>>>> be to include
>>>>>>> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
>>>>>>> application) as that is
>>>>>>> where the reference to having "access to and use of
>>>> information and
>>>>>>> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Diane Golden
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On
>>>> Behalf Of Baker,
>>>>>>> Robert C.
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
>>>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
>>>> comparable access
>>>>>>> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
>>>>>>> appropriate to
>>>>>>> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
>>>>>>> this phrase is
>>>>>>> very unclear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Robert
>>>>>>>

From: Deborah Buck
Date: Wed, Jun 06 2007 7:00 AM
Subject: Re: Comparable Access

We do need to remember the point of the law and the regs. 508 is not
intended as the statute to address all of the needs of individuals with
disabilities. 508 has historically been a baseline to ensure that the
infrastructure exists to provide E&IT accessibility for stand alone products
and ensure interoperability with an individual's AT. Individuals considered
a person with a disability have rights under 504 and the ADA to request a
reasonable accommodation, which can include the provision of AT to enable
them to do their job or to ensure participation or public access to the
programs operated by the federal agency. The individual choice of AT is
considered as part of the accommodation process, however as consistent with
most federal laws related to accommodations and access there is nothing that
requires the agency to acquire the "best" but rather they are required to
accommodate in a reasonable or appropriate manner. 508 is not meant to
replace or diminish the rights accorded to people with disabilities under
the provisions accorded to people under the ADA or 504.


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2007 8:26 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access

Why not? Just because it hasn't doesn't mean it shouldn't.:)



On Jun 6, 2007, at 8:17 AM, David Poehlman wrote:

> Stigmatism is not a barrier to *access*. I use a talking computer.
> would it
> be more appropriate for me to have someone whispering in my ear?
> Suppose it
> were the only alternative and it was deemed as good or superior to
> a talking
> computer? I agree this is an issue, it though does not bear on
> whether
> something is accessible.
>
> Someone's choice is a willfull exercise and must not be confused
> with real
> barriers to accessibility such as no access at all choice
> notwithstanding.
> What in the law requires a providor to choose something which is not
> stigmatic?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 9:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>
>
> I disagree. Why is this any different from any other provision. The
> whole point of the regs is to assist people. Many people will not
> use anything that stigmatizes them. This is an important
> consideration and should not be dismissed lightly. Why would anyone
> want to use anything that draws attention to them when there is an
> alternative that does not.:) We need to remember the point of the
> regs. :)
>
> Janice
>
>
>
> On Jun 5, 2007, at 6:41 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>
>> It would take a change in statute or regulatory language in Section
>> 504 and/or the ADA and/or litigation history pursuant to 504/ADA to
>> add "least obstrusive" as a required part of determining
>> "reasonable accommodation" or "auxilary aid or service".
>>
>> Diane
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----
>> From: Tom Brett < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee <teitac-
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 5, 2007 9:57:08 AM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> The Government would be required to purchase 2 types of AT.
>> Inasmuch as I
>> support the less intrusive wording I don't see how the government
>> can be
>> forced to pay for 2 different types of reasonable accommodation.
>> The person
>> with a disability has been provided with a way to participate in the
>> conference.
>>
>> Tom Brett
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 10:48 AM
>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>> If two options are available and one is least obtrusive to the user
>> and thus
>> less stigma, that option should be used. For example, in a
>> conference room,
>> there is the option of using an induction loop or an FM system. An
>> FM system
>> requires the person with hearing loss to wear a receiver and a
>> neckloop. An
>> iduction loop requires the person to just switch their hearing aid
>> to "T".
>> Why should a person wear a device when they don't have to? This
>> happens all
>> the time because people don't understand induction loops. :)
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Janice
>> Sent from my BlackBerry wireless handheld.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Poehlman < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>
>> Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2007 10:24:43
>> To:TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> I'm not diagreeing necessarily, but what does "least intrusive" do?
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 6:45 AM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>
>>
>> I would just add "in the least intrusive manner.
>>
>> Janice
>> On Jun 4, 2007, at 2:52 PM, Jim Tobias wrote:
>>
>>> i think you nailed this. i agree completely with this draft.
>>>
>>> ***
>>> Jim Tobias
>>> Inclusive Technologies
>>> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
>>> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
>>> skype jimtobias
>>>
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Diane Golden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 1:45 PM
>>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>
>>>> So here's yet another draft -- revising the language back
>>>> into a definition and separating timely and efficient.
>>>>
>>>> Proposed New Definition of Comparable Access Comparable
>>>> access means that individuals with disabilities have access
>>>> to and use of information and data that is timely, accurate,
>>>> complete and efficient when compared to that available to
>>>> individuals without disabilities. Timely access ensures that
>>>> individuals with disabilities have information and data
>>>> available to them at the same time as individuals without
>>>> disabilities. Accurate and complete access ensures that the
>>>> information and data reflects the intended meaning especially
>>>> when converted into another form or media. Efficiency of
>>>> access includes consideration of the speed with which a
>>>> person with a disability can use electronic and information
>>>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>>>> compared to an individual without disabilities.
>>>>
>>>> Does changing this to a definition help address the concerns
>>>> about how this would be used or not used in solicitations?
>>>>
>>>> Diane
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>>>> Gregg Vanderheiden
>>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:32 PM
>>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Indeed.
>>>>
>>>> I think the term "timely" takes on different meanings for
>>>> 'content' and for 'devices'
>>>>
>>>> We should keep that in mind and perhaps reflect it in out language
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> David
>>>>> Poehlman
>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:14 PM
>>>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with everything said about this but the note below does
>> not
>>>>> express this clearly ehough and comparable access is a term
>>>> oft used
>>>>> when descriing side by side modalities not alternate formats?
>>>>> "Timely access includes consideration of the speed with
>>>> which a person
>>>>> with a disability can use electronic and information technology to
>>>>> access information or perform a task as compared to an individual
>>>>> without disabilities
>>>>>
>>>>> To me, this more closely addresses an issue such as being
>>>> able to use
>>>>> the equipment in a comparable way.
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 12:44 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I concur with Karen. Timely is not the same as efficiency
>>>> and is the
>>>>> term we should be using. it was timely, accurate, and
>>>> complete from
>>>>> my recollection.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> Karen
>>>>> Peltz Strauss
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 11:02 AM
>>>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>> Gregg is right. This is a really important point - all too
>>>> often, the
>>>>> information is given at a later time, when it is not as
>>>> relevant, such
>>>>> as a transcript of a meeting instead of interpreters or captioning
>>>>> while the meeting is going on. Or a Brailled or electronic
>>>> version of
>>>>> something, weeks after sighted people get the printed version. I
>>>>> watched this happen time and again when I worked in the
>> government.
>>>>>
>>>>> Karen
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >;
>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 12:22 AM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Timely is included to make sure that information and access is
>>>>>> provided on a timely basis. That is, if others have access to
>>>>>> information or devices now
>>>>>> - then people with disabilities should have access now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think that would be timely - not efficiency.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> However having efficient access is also important.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gregg
>>>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On
>>>> Behalf Of David
>>>>>>> Poehlman
>>>>>>> Sent: Saturday, June 02, 2007 6:47 AM
>>>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi All,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The word timely here is not appropriate to its stated
>>>> function. We
>>>>>>> need to find a better word. This has more to do with
>>>>> efficiency than
>>>>>
>>>>>>> timeleness.
>>>>>>> Lastly, there's a bit of stuff at the top of this
>>>> message I quote
>>>>>>> below that I don't understand.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>>>> />"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>>> From: "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>>>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>>>>>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 11:52 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Robert. Already made that change based on the
>>>> discussion at
>>>>>>> the plenary meeting. The following is the current
>>>> version of that
>>>>>>> section.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
>>>>>>> "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
>>>>>>> />
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "When determining if individuals with disabilities have
>>>>> access to and
>>>>>
>>>>>>> use of information and data that is comparable to that
>>>> available to
>>>>>>> individuals without disabilities, each agency shall ensure that
>>>>>>> individuals with disabilities have access that is
>>>> timely, accurate
>>>>>>> and complete. Timely access includes consideration of the
>>>>> speed with
>>>>>
>>>>>>> which a person with a disability can use electronic and
>>>> information
>>>>>>> technology to access information or perform a task as
>>>>> compared to an
>>>>>>> individual without disabilities. Accurate and complete access
>>>>>>> ensures that the information and data reflects the
>>>> intended meaning
>>>>>>> especially when converted into another form or media. "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The rest of the discussion at the plenary meeting was concern
>>>>>>> expressed at how this would (or would not) be used in
>>>>> solicitations.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the perception of the agency procurement people is
>>>>> that this
>>>>>>> would NOT be used in a solicitation, but used internally
>>>> by agency
>>>>>>> staff to evaluate if they are meeting the statute
>>>> requirements in
>>>>>>> delivery of access to employees and
>>>>>>> the public. One option that might help address this would
>>>>>>> be to include
>>>>>>> this language in the Purpose section (rather than
>>>>>>> application) as that is
>>>>>>> where the reference to having "access to and use of
>>>> information and
>>>>>>> data that is comparable" is found. Other thoughts/suggestions?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Diane Golden
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On
>>>> Behalf Of Baker,
>>>>>>> Robert C.
>>>>>>> Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:07 AM
>>>>>>> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Comparable Access
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I recommend changing the verbiage to the proposed
>>>> comparable access
>>>>>>> provision to delete the phrase "and in a manner and medium
>>>>>>> appropriate to
>>>>>>> the significance of the message". The intended meaning of
>>>>>>> this phrase is
>>>>>>> very unclear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Robert
>>>>>>>

From: Baker, Robert C.
Date: Thu, Jun 07 2007 5:00 AM
Subject: Comparable Access

I propose the following modified wording for the comparable access
provision, which separately defines "accurate and complete" and provides
further clarity on what "efficient" means without using the term "speed"

Comparable access means that individuals with disabilities have access
to and use of information and data that is timely, accurate, complete
and efficient when compared to that available to individuals without
disabilities.
- Timely access ensures that individuals with disabilities have
information and data available to them at the same time as individuals
without disabilities.
- Accurate access ensures that the information and data reflects the
intended meaning especially when converted into another form or media.
- Complete access ensures that no information or data is missing when
accessed by assistive technology or converted into another form or media
- Efficient access ensures that an individual with a disability exerts
the same amount of effort in using electronic and information technology
to perform a task as compared to an individual without a disability.

Robert