Thread Subject: FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Schomburg, Paul
Date: Tue, May 29 2007 10:00 AM
Subject: FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

Folks: Alternatively, could the Access Board recommend that each agency
compile its own list of what AT it uses? If this is public information
it could be used to compile a government-wide list of AT used by the
Federal Government. Reference to each agency's list could be included
as part of the market research requirements that each agency is
responsible to conduct.



Thanks, Paul



Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager

Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114

From: Diane Golden
Date: Tue, May 29 2007 11:15 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

Here is what I have drafted as a suggestion for technical assistance per
Access Board as related to the revised defintion of AT.

Diane



Possible Technical Assistance Information for Access Board consideration-

Reference AT resource lists such as the federal CAP listing of assistive
technology used in accommodations (
<http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm>
http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm) or the
Assistive Technology Act federally funded National Public Website on
Assistive Technology ( http://assistivetech.net <http://assistivetech.net/>
). The Access Board could also consider recommending that each agency
compile a list of the AT typically used in that agency. If made public,
such information could be helpful in understanding the range of items used
by federal agencies and could prove helpful to vendors, agencies and
consumers.


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Schomburg, Paul
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:57 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Cc: Schomburg, Paul
Subject: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions



Folks: Alternatively, could the Access Board recommend that each agency
compile its own list of what AT it uses? If this is public information it
could be used to compile a government-wide list of AT used by the Federal
Government. Reference to each agency's list could be included as part of
the market research requirements that each agency is responsible to conduct.




Thanks, Paul



Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager

Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114



_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:17 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Cc: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions




While not an outside list, the Department of Defense's web site for the
Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) includes information on
lots of AT devices and some pretty good language as to their utility. Could
we consider referencing this site as an example of what AT might be, but not
limited to, defined as?

http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm
<http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm>







"jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

05/29/2007 10:21 AM


Please respond to
"TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To

"TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


cc




Subject

Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions











An outside list is okay if it is controlling. I think we need to rely on
the consumers for this issue. The bottom line is that the current
methodology is not working so we need to rethink how to approach this.

Best,

Janice
On May 29, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Jessica M. Brodey wrote:

I think Andrew, Tom, and Gregg all have valid points. First, captioning is
a means of providing access through technology, but it is not necessarily
assistive technology. Second, creating a list can be dangerous - there is
the risk of excluding technologies (which then may not be provided upon
request because they are not on the list), a list quickly becomes outdated,
and it could potentially stifle innovation. If some people feel that a list
is critical, perhaps we can ask the Access Board to publish a non-normative
list outside the regulations.



Jessica Brodey



_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom Brett
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 2:56 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions



The concern I would have is that by specifying particular types of assistive
technology would be that you will limit future innovation. The government
could read that all I need is to provide captions and then new technology
comes out that provides seamless ASL



Tom Brett



_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 9:43 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions



The language "such as but not limited to" is critical but it is also
critical that the items are listed in alphabetical order so that one item is
not more important than another.



The reason we need to list is that no one outside maybe a 100 people :)
understands what assistive technology is.:) In the past few week, I have
been asked countless times, "is there a list in the law that I can refer
to". When I explain that the language is meant to be tailored to the
individual, the person who is supposed to implement the access is
exasperated. While this has been in the museum setting, it has also been in
the National Park setting. It sounds wonderful in theory but in reality, no
one understands generalities. Therefore nothing gets done because no one
has time to do the research or if it does get done, the information gathered
is based on what vendors want to sell.:)



On a personal note, years ago, the Department of Education did not want to
provide a service that was clearly needed and required . They told me that
they were not required to provide it. When I showed then the service was
listed in the legislation with "such as but not limited to" language, the
service was provided. :) If this list was not provided, I would have had to
sue them. People who have disabilities can make suing people a full-time
job. :) This is not a good option. Clarity is.



The way the law is set-up now is clearly not working. It is time for a
change and the use of the language"such as but not limited to" with examples
listed in alphabetical order can be inserted and used as a guide and
starting point for appropriate access. We as a group need to remember that
the goal here is to not only assist the procurement officers but also the
end user who can point to legal language to obtain what they need when there
may be an artificial barrier (a boss :) ) who is preventing the person from
obtaining the appropriate access they need to have appropriate access.



Enjoy the rest of the weekend!



Best,



Janice













On May 25, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:



Concur.



Also we don't want to start listing AT. Where do you stop. Who feels left
out. Dangerous way to define.






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






I don't agree that equivalents such as audio description or captioning are
assistive technology. An argument could be made that a caption decoder is
AT, but not the captions.

AWK


_____

From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:09 PM
To: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A
Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

I have added my additions below in red. Please note, my suggestions are in
alphabetical order. :)





On May 25, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Diane Golden wrote:





The following is what I have drafted based on the feedback at the meeting.
New language is in CAPS.

Diane



Assistive Technology means any item, piece of equipment, or system, whether
acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is commonly used to
increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with
disabilities. AS USED IN THIS PART, THE TERM INCLUDES TRADITIONAL ASSISTIVE
TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ALONG WITH VIRTUAL ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY
DELIVERED AS A WEB SERVICE AND INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTS INTO A SYSTEM THAT
PROVIDES ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES TO ACCESS ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY such as but not
limited to assistive listening devices, audio description, captioning.



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

-----Original Message-----
From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:22 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

Generally notes that are immediately adjacent a definition in a standard
cannot change the meaning in the standard but can explain what it already
says. So they don't have the same effect as the definition - but since they
are explaining what it says - the definition would convey their weight.
However - for the regulations it may be that any notes would end up back in
the front matter rather than with the definition. In that case we may want
to / need to embed the info in the definition somehow. Like

Definition

Assistive technology: Assistive technology means ...... devices, systems
(including web services and integrated products that deliver assistive
services), yada yada yada.


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


_____

From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jessica M.
Brodey
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:56 AM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

This revised definition addresses ATIA's concerns stated yesterday during
the Subpart A report. We would support adopting this. One question -
should Note 1 and Note 2 be treated as subsections and included in the
regulation to give it the same force as the definition?

Jessica



_____

From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:11 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

A way to meet the concerns that led to including the term "SERVICE" and "IN
ACCESSING E&IT"

(without creating the problems and grief that will come from trying to
change the definition of AT)

might be to keep definition but add notes that would be included with the
definition .

like this:

Definition

Assistive technology: Assistive technology means...etc etc etc (standard
definition)

Note 1: Virtual Assistive technology delivered as a web service, and
integration of different products into a system that provides assistive
functions to people with disabilities, are two examples of things that are
included in the term 'systems' in this definition.

Note 2: Within this Part, Assistive Technology means Assistive technology
used in accessing E&IT.


Gregg

------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848

DSS Player at <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b> http://tinyurl.com/dho6b

If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/

<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>

From: jagbell
Date: Tue, May 29 2007 11:35 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

I think that would be a fabulous idea. This way there would be one
list.

Janice
On May 29, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Schomburg, Paul wrote:

> Folks: Alternatively, could the Access Board recommend that each
> agency compile its own list of what AT it uses? If this is public
> information it could be used to compile a government-wide list of
> AT used by the Federal Government. Reference to each agency�s list
> could be included as part of the market research requirements that
> each agency is responsible to conduct.
>
>
>
> Thanks, Paul
>
>
> Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
> Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:17 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Cc: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; teitac-subparta-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
>
>
> While not an outside list, the Department of Defense's web site for
> the Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) includes
> information on lots of AT devices and some pretty good language as
> to their utility. Could we consider referencing this site as an
> example of what AT might be, but not limited to, defined as?
>
> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm
>
>
>
>
>
> "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> 05/29/2007 10:21 AM
>
> Please respond to
> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>
> To
>
> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> cc
>
>
>
> Subject
>
> Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> An outside list is okay if it is controlling. I think we need to
> rely on the consumers for this issue. The bottom line is that the
> current methodology is not working so we need to rethink how to
> approach this.
>
> Best,
>
> Janice
> On May 29, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Jessica M. Brodey wrote:
>
> I think Andrew, Tom, and Gregg all have valid points. First,
> captioning is a means of providing access through technology, but
> it is not necessarily assistive technology. Second, creating a
> list can be dangerous � there is the risk of excluding technologies
> (which then may not be provided upon request because they are not
> on the list), a list quickly becomes outdated, and it could
> potentially stifle innovation. If some people feel that a list is
> critical, perhaps we can ask the Access Board to publish a non-
> normative list outside the regulations.
>
>
>
> Jessica Brodey
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom Brett
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 2:56 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
>
> The concern I would have is that by specifying particular types of
> assistive technology would be that you will limit future
> innovation. The government could read that all I need is to
> provide captions and then new technology comes out that provides
> seamless ASL
>
>
>
> Tom Brett
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 9:43 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
>
> The language "such as but not limited to" is critical but it is
> also critical that the items are listed in alphabetical order so
> that one item is not more important than another.
>
>
>
> The reason we need to list is that no one outside maybe a 100
> people :) understands what assistive technology is.:) In the past
> few week, I have been asked countless times, "is there a list in
> the law that I can refer to". When I explain that the language is
> meant to be tailored to the individual, the person who is supposed
> to implement the access is exasperated. While this has been in the
> museum setting, it has also been in the National Park setting. It
> sounds wonderful in theory but in reality, no one understands
> generalities. Therefore nothing gets done because no one has time
> to do the research or if it does get done, the information gathered
> is based on what vendors want to sell.:)
>
>
>
> On a personal note, years ago, the Department of Education did not
> want to provide a service that was clearly needed and required .
> They told me that they were not required to provide it. When I
> showed then the service was listed in the legislation with "such as
> but not limited to" language, the service was provided. :) If this
> list was not provided, I would have had to sue them. People who
> have disabilities can make suing people a full-time job. :) This
> is not a good option. Clarity is.
>
>
>
> The way the law is set-up now is clearly not working. It is time
> for a change and the use of the language"such as but not limited
> to" with examples listed in alphabetical order can be inserted and
> used as a guide and starting point for appropriate access. We as a
> group need to remember that the goal here is to not only assist the
> procurement officers but also the end user who can point to legal
> language to obtain what they need when there may be an artificial
> barrier (a boss :) ) who is preventing the person from obtaining
> the appropriate access they need to have appropriate access.
>
>
>
> Enjoy the rest of the weekend!
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Janice
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 25, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>
>
>
> Concur.
>
>
>
> Also we don't want to start listing AT. Where do you stop. Who
> feels left out. Dangerous way to define.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't agree that equivalents such as audio description or
> captioning are assistive technology. An argument could be made
> that a caption decoder is AT, but not the captions.
>
> AWK
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:09 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
> I have added my additions below in red. Please note, my
> suggestions are in alphabetical order. :)
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 25, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> The following is what I have drafted based on the feedback at the
> meeting. New language is in CAPS.
>
> Diane
>
>
>
> Assistive Technology means any item, piece of equipment, or system,
> whether acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is
> commonly used to increase, maintain, or improve functional
> capabilities of individuals with disabilities. AS USED IN THIS
> PART, THE TERM INCLUDES TRADITIONAL ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE
> AND SOFTWARE ALONG WITH VIRTUAL ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY DELIVERED AS A
> WEB SERVICE AND INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTS INTO A SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES
> ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS WITH
> DISABILITIES TO ACCESS ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY such
> as but not limited to assistive listening devices, audio
> description, captioning.
>
>
>
> Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
> Missouri Assistive Technology
> 816/350-5280 (direct voice)
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> www.at.mo.gov
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:22 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
> Generally notes that are immediately adjacent a definition in a
> standard cannot change the meaning in the standard but can explain
> what it already says. So they don't have the same effect as the
> definition � but since they are explaining what it says � the
> definition would convey their weight. However � for the
> regulations it may be that any notes would end up back in the front
> matter rather than with the definition. In that case we may want
> to / need to embed the info in the definition somehow. Like
>
> Definition
>
> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means �� devices,
> systems (including web services and integrated products that
> deliver assistive services), yada yada yada.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jessica M. Brodey
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:56 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
> This revised definition addresses ATIA�s concerns stated yesterday
> during the Subpart A report. We would support adopting this. One
> question � should Note 1 and Note 2 be treated as subsections and
> included in the regulation to give it the same force as the
> definition?
>
> Jessica
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:11 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
> A way to meet the concerns that led to including the term �SERVICE�
> and �IN ACCESSING E&IT�
>
> (without creating the problems and grief that will come from trying
> to change the definition of AT)
>
> might be to keep definition but add notes that would be included
> with the definition .
>
> like this:
>
> Definition
>
> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means�etc etc etc
> (standard definition)
>
> Note 1: Virtual Assistive technology delivered as a web service,
> and integration of different products into a system that provides
> assistive functions to people with disabilities, are two examples
> of things that are included in the term �systems� in this definition.
>
> Note 2: Within this Part, Assistive Technology means Assistive
> technology used in accessing E&IT.
>
>
> Gregg
>
> ------------------------
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> Director - Trace R & D Center
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
>
> DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>
> If Attachement is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: jagbell
Date: Tue, May 29 2007 11:40 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

We need to be stronger than consideration. :) I am not sure how many
people on the committee use AT but as you all know, our daughter
does. The practical aspects are a nightmare. There are very few
places in this country that have appropriate access and it is because
no one understands what it means. I am happy to provide names and
numbers of people who have requested this. We need to stop
exacerbating the problem and come up with a solution that really
works. :) It is not working at all which is why I am pushing so
hard. A person with a disability is at the mercy of whoever is in
charge whether it is a procurement person or an access person. No
one's life should be at someone else's mercy. It is time for a
change.:)


On May 29, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Diane Golden wrote:

> Here is what I have drafted as a suggestion for technical
> assistance per
> Access Board as related to the revised defintion of AT.
>
> Diane
>
>
>
> Possible Technical Assistance Information for Access Board
> consideration-
>
> Reference AT resource lists such as the federal CAP listing of
> assistive
> technology used in accommodations (
> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm>
> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm) or the
> Assistive Technology Act federally funded National Public Website on
> Assistive Technology ( http://assistivetech.net <http://
> assistivetech.net/>
> ). The Access Board could also consider recommending that each agency
> compile a list of the AT typically used in that agency. If made
> public,
> such information could be helpful in understanding the range of
> items used
> by federal agencies and could prove helpful to vendors, agencies and
> consumers.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
> Schomburg, Paul
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:57 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Cc: Schomburg, Paul
> Subject: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
>
> Folks: Alternatively, could the Access Board recommend that each
> agency
> compile its own list of what AT it uses? If this is public
> information it
> could be used to compile a government-wide list of AT used by the
> Federal
> Government. Reference to each agency's list could be included as
> part of
> the market research requirements that each agency is responsible to
> conduct.
>
>
>
>
> Thanks, Paul
>
>
>
> Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
>
> Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:17 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Cc: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; teitac-subparta-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
>
>
> While not an outside list, the Department of Defense's web site for
> the
> Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) includes
> information on
> lots of AT devices and some pretty good language as to their
> utility. Could
> we consider referencing this site as an example of what AT might
> be, but not
> limited to, defined as?
>
> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm
> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> 05/29/2007 10:21 AM
>
>
> Please respond to
> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>
> To
>
> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>
> cc
>
>
>
>
> Subject
>
> Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> An outside list is okay if it is controlling. I think we need to
> rely on
> the consumers for this issue. The bottom line is that the current
> methodology is not working so we need to rethink how to approach this.
>
> Best,
>
> Janice
> On May 29, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Jessica M. Brodey wrote:
>
> I think Andrew, Tom, and Gregg all have valid points. First,
> captioning is
> a means of providing access through technology, but it is not
> necessarily
> assistive technology. Second, creating a list can be dangerous -
> there is
> the risk of excluding technologies (which then may not be provided
> upon
> request because they are not on the list), a list quickly becomes
> outdated,
> and it could potentially stifle innovation. If some people feel
> that a list
> is critical, perhaps we can ask the Access Board to publish a non-
> normative
> list outside the regulations.
>
>
>
> Jessica Brodey
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom Brett
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 2:56 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
>
> The concern I would have is that by specifying particular types of
> assistive
> technology would be that you will limit future innovation. The
> government
> could read that all I need is to provide captions and then new
> technology
> comes out that provides seamless ASL
>
>
>
> Tom Brett
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 9:43 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
>
> The language "such as but not limited to" is critical but it is also
> critical that the items are listed in alphabetical order so that
> one item is
> not more important than another.
>
>
>
> The reason we need to list is that no one outside maybe a 100
> people :)
> understands what assistive technology is.:) In the past few week,
> I have
> been asked countless times, "is there a list in the law that I can
> refer
> to". When I explain that the language is meant to be tailored to the
> individual, the person who is supposed to implement the access is
> exasperated. While this has been in the museum setting, it has
> also been in
> the National Park setting. It sounds wonderful in theory but in
> reality, no
> one understands generalities. Therefore nothing gets done because
> no one
> has time to do the research or if it does get done, the information
> gathered
> is based on what vendors want to sell.:)
>
>
>
> On a personal note, years ago, the Department of Education did not
> want to
> provide a service that was clearly needed and required . They told
> me that
> they were not required to provide it. When I showed then the
> service was
> listed in the legislation with "such as but not limited to"
> language, the
> service was provided. :) If this list was not provided, I would
> have had to
> sue them. People who have disabilities can make suing people a
> full-time
> job. :) This is not a good option. Clarity is.
>
>
>
> The way the law is set-up now is clearly not working. It is time
> for a
> change and the use of the language"such as but not limited to" with
> examples
> listed in alphabetical order can be inserted and used as a guide and
> starting point for appropriate access. We as a group need to
> remember that
> the goal here is to not only assist the procurement officers but
> also the
> end user who can point to legal language to obtain what they need
> when there
> may be an artificial barrier (a boss :) ) who is preventing the
> person from
> obtaining the appropriate access they need to have appropriate access.
>
>
>
> Enjoy the rest of the weekend!
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Janice
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 25, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>
>
>
> Concur.
>
>
>
> Also we don't want to start listing AT. Where do you stop. Who
> feels left
> out. Dangerous way to define.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't agree that equivalents such as audio description or
> captioning are
> assistive technology. An argument could be made that a caption
> decoder is
> AT, but not the captions.
>
> AWK
>
>
> _____
>
> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:09 PM
> To: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC
> Subpart A
> Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
> I have added my additions below in red. Please note, my
> suggestions are in
> alphabetical order. :)
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 25, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> The following is what I have drafted based on the feedback at the
> meeting.
> New language is in CAPS.
>
> Diane
>
>
>
> Assistive Technology means any item, piece of equipment, or system,
> whether
> acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is commonly
> used to
> increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of
> individuals with
> disabilities. AS USED IN THIS PART, THE TERM INCLUDES TRADITIONAL
> ASSISTIVE
> TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ALONG WITH VIRTUAL ASSISTIVE
> TECHNOLOGY
> DELIVERED AS A WEB SERVICE AND INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTS INTO A
> SYSTEM THAT
> PROVIDES ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS WITH
> DISABILITIES TO ACCESS ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY such
> as but not
> limited to assistive listening devices, audio description, captioning.
>
>
>
> Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
> Missouri Assistive Technology
> 816/350-5280 (direct voice)
> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> www.at.mo.gov
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
> Vanderheiden
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:22 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
> Generally notes that are immediately adjacent a definition in a
> standard
> cannot change the meaning in the standard but can explain what it
> already
> says. So they don't have the same effect as the definition - but
> since they
> are explaining what it says - the definition would convey their
> weight.
> However - for the regulations it may be that any notes would end up
> back in
> the front matter rather than with the definition. In that case we
> may want
> to / need to embed the info in the definition somehow. Like
>
> Definition
>
> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means ...... devices,
> systems
> (including web services and integrated products that deliver assistive
> services), yada yada yada.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
> _____
>
> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Jessica M.
> Brodey
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:56 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
> This revised definition addresses ATIA's concerns stated yesterday
> during
> the Subpart A report. We would support adopting this. One question -
> should Note 1 and Note 2 be treated as subsections and included in the
> regulation to give it the same force as the definition?
>
> Jessica
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
> Vanderheiden
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:11 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
> A way to meet the concerns that led to including the term "SERVICE"
> and "IN
> ACCESSING E&IT"
>
> (without creating the problems and grief that will come from trying to
> change the definition of AT)
>
> might be to keep definition but add notes that would be included
> with the
> definition .
>
> like this:
>
> Definition
>
> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means...etc etc etc
> (standard
> definition)
>
> Note 1: Virtual Assistive technology delivered as a web service, and
> integration of different products into a system that provides
> assistive
> functions to people with disabilities, are two examples of things
> that are
> included in the term 'systems' in this definition.
>
> Note 2: Within this Part, Assistive Technology means Assistive
> technology
> used in accessing E&IT.
>
>
> Gregg
>
> ------------------------
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> Director - Trace R & D Center
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
> < <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
>
> DSS Player at <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b> http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>
> If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
> http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>
> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Tue, May 29 2007 11:55 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

Assistive technology includes techniques so why would captioning and audio
description not be AT? I think if we describe its functionality which will
remain forever, we don't need a list?

Asistive technology provides the means to access and or interact with
information technology which permit those who cannot hear, see,
manipulate...?

----- Original Message -----
From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions


We need to be stronger than consideration. :) I am not sure how many
people on the committee use AT but as you all know, our daughter
does. The practical aspects are a nightmare. There are very few
places in this country that have appropriate access and it is because
no one understands what it means. I am happy to provide names and
numbers of people who have requested this. We need to stop
exacerbating the problem and come up with a solution that really
works. :) It is not working at all which is why I am pushing so
hard. A person with a disability is at the mercy of whoever is in
charge whether it is a procurement person or an access person. No
one's life should be at someone else's mercy. It is time for a
change.:)


On May 29, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Diane Golden wrote:

> Here is what I have drafted as a suggestion for technical
> assistance per
> Access Board as related to the revised defintion of AT.
>
> Diane
>
>
>
> Possible Technical Assistance Information for Access Board
> consideration-
>
> Reference AT resource lists such as the federal CAP listing of
> assistive
> technology used in accommodations (
> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm>
> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm) or the
> Assistive Technology Act federally funded National Public Website on
> Assistive Technology ( http://assistivetech.net <http://
> assistivetech.net/>
> ). The Access Board could also consider recommending that each agency
> compile a list of the AT typically used in that agency. If made
> public,
> such information could be helpful in understanding the range of
> items used
> by federal agencies and could prove helpful to vendors, agencies and
> consumers.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
> Schomburg, Paul
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:57 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Cc: Schomburg, Paul
> Subject: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
>
> Folks: Alternatively, could the Access Board recommend that each
> agency
> compile its own list of what AT it uses? If this is public
> information it
> could be used to compile a government-wide list of AT used by the
> Federal
> Government. Reference to each agency's list could be included as
> part of
> the market research requirements that each agency is responsible to
> conduct.
>
>
>
>
> Thanks, Paul
>
>
>
> Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
>
> Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:17 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Cc: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; teitac-subparta-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
>
>
> While not an outside list, the Department of Defense's web site for
> the
> Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) includes
> information on
> lots of AT devices and some pretty good language as to their
> utility. Could
> we consider referencing this site as an example of what AT might
> be, but not
> limited to, defined as?
>
> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm
> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> 05/29/2007 10:21 AM
>
>
> Please respond to
> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>
> To
>
> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>
> cc
>
>
>
>
> Subject
>
> Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> An outside list is okay if it is controlling. I think we need to
> rely on
> the consumers for this issue. The bottom line is that the current
> methodology is not working so we need to rethink how to approach this.
>
> Best,
>
> Janice
> On May 29, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Jessica M. Brodey wrote:
>
> I think Andrew, Tom, and Gregg all have valid points. First,
> captioning is
> a means of providing access through technology, but it is not
> necessarily
> assistive technology. Second, creating a list can be dangerous -
> there is
> the risk of excluding technologies (which then may not be provided
> upon
> request because they are not on the list), a list quickly becomes
> outdated,
> and it could potentially stifle innovation. If some people feel
> that a list
> is critical, perhaps we can ask the Access Board to publish a non-
> normative
> list outside the regulations.
>
>
>
> Jessica Brodey
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom Brett
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 2:56 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
>
> The concern I would have is that by specifying particular types of
> assistive
> technology would be that you will limit future innovation. The
> government
> could read that all I need is to provide captions and then new
> technology
> comes out that provides seamless ASL
>
>
>
> Tom Brett
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 9:43 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
>
> The language "such as but not limited to" is critical but it is also
> critical that the items are listed in alphabetical order so that
> one item is
> not more important than another.
>
>
>
> The reason we need to list is that no one outside maybe a 100
> people :)
> understands what assistive technology is.:) In the past few week,
> I have
> been asked countless times, "is there a list in the law that I can
> refer
> to". When I explain that the language is meant to be tailored to the
> individual, the person who is supposed to implement the access is
> exasperated. While this has been in the museum setting, it has
> also been in
> the National Park setting. It sounds wonderful in theory but in
> reality, no
> one understands generalities. Therefore nothing gets done because
> no one
> has time to do the research or if it does get done, the information
> gathered
> is based on what vendors want to sell.:)
>
>
>
> On a personal note, years ago, the Department of Education did not
> want to
> provide a service that was clearly needed and required . They told
> me that
> they were not required to provide it. When I showed then the
> service was
> listed in the legislation with "such as but not limited to"
> language, the
> service was provided. :) If this list was not provided, I would
> have had to
> sue them. People who have disabilities can make suing people a
> full-time
> job. :) This is not a good option. Clarity is.
>
>
>
> The way the law is set-up now is clearly not working. It is time
> for a
> change and the use of the language"such as but not limited to" with
> examples
> listed in alphabetical order can be inserted and used as a guide and
> starting point for appropriate access. We as a group need to
> remember that
> the goal here is to not only assist the procurement officers but
> also the
> end user who can point to legal language to obtain what they need
> when there
> may be an artificial barrier (a boss :) ) who is preventing the
> person from
> obtaining the appropriate access they need to have appropriate access.
>
>
>
> Enjoy the rest of the weekend!
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Janice
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 25, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>
>
>
> Concur.
>
>
>
> Also we don't want to start listing AT. Where do you stop. Who
> feels left
> out. Dangerous way to define.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't agree that equivalents such as audio description or
> captioning are
> assistive technology. An argument could be made that a caption
> decoder is
> AT, but not the captions.
>
> AWK
>
>
> _____
>
> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:09 PM
> To: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC
> Subpart A
> Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
> I have added my additions below in red. Please note, my
> suggestions are in
> alphabetical order. :)
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 25, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> The following is what I have drafted based on the feedback at the
> meeting.
> New language is in CAPS.
>
> Diane
>
>
>
> Assistive Technology means any item, piece of equipment, or system,
> whether
> acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is commonly
> used to
> increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of
> individuals with
> disabilities. AS USED IN THIS PART, THE TERM INCLUDES TRADITIONAL
> ASSISTIVE
> TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ALONG WITH VIRTUAL ASSISTIVE
> TECHNOLOGY
> DELIVERED AS A WEB SERVICE AND INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTS INTO A
> SYSTEM THAT
> PROVIDES ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS WITH
> DISABILITIES TO ACCESS ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY such
> as but not
> limited to assistive listening devices, audio description, captioning.
>
>
>
> Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
> Missouri Assistive Technology
> 816/350-5280 (direct voice)
> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> www.at.mo.gov
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
> Vanderheiden
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:22 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
> Generally notes that are immediately adjacent a definition in a
> standard
> cannot change the meaning in the standard but can explain what it
> already
> says. So they don't have the same effect as the definition - but
> since they
> are explaining what it says - the definition would convey their
> weight.
> However - for the regulations it may be that any notes would end up
> back in
> the front matter rather than with the definition. In that case we
> may want
> to / need to embed the info in the definition somehow. Like
>
> Definition
>
> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means ...... devices,
> systems
> (including web services and integrated products that deliver assistive
> services), yada yada yada.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
> _____
>
> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Jessica M.
> Brodey
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:56 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
> This revised definition addresses ATIA's concerns stated yesterday
> during
> the Subpart A report. We would support adopting this. One question -
> should Note 1 and Note 2 be treated as subsections and included in the
> regulation to give it the same force as the definition?
>
> Jessica
>
>
>
> _____
>
> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
> Vanderheiden
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:11 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
> A way to meet the concerns that led to including the term "SERVICE"
> and "IN
> ACCESSING E&IT"
>
> (without creating the problems and grief that will come from trying to
> change the definition of AT)
>
> might be to keep definition but add notes that would be included
> with the
> definition .
>
> like this:
>
> Definition
>
> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means...etc etc etc
> (standard
> definition)
>
> Note 1: Virtual Assistive technology delivered as a web service, and
> integration of different products into a system that provides
> assistive
> functions to people with disabilities, are two examples of things
> that are
> included in the term 'systems' in this definition.
>
> Note 2: Within this Part, Assistive Technology means Assistive
> technology
> used in accessing E&IT.
>
>
> Gregg
>
> ------------------------
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> Director - Trace R & D Center
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
> < <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
>
> DSS Player at <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b> http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>
> If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
> http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>
> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
>
>
>
>
>
>

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Tue, May 29 2007 12:00 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

This might work well as part of a general recommendation to the Access
Board:

"The Committee recommends that the Access Board develop or participate in
the development of
informational materials that would be useful to federal agencies and others
in the implementation
of the regulations. These resources could include:

- assistive technologies, both categories and specific models, used by
agencies and individuals
- implementation notes on the compatibility of assistive technologies and
E&IT products and services
- implementation notes on the accessibility features of E&IT products and
services
- results of Section 508 market research performed by federal agencies"

Anyone think of other information resources that could be developed and
shared?



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




_____

From: jagbell [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:33 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions


I think that would be a fabulous idea. This way there would be one list.

Janice

On May 29, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Schomburg, Paul wrote:


Folks: Alternatively, could the Access Board recommend that each agency
compile its own list of what AT it uses? If this is public information it
could be used to compile a government-wide list of AT used by the Federal
Government. Reference to each agency's list could be included as part of
the market research requirements that each agency is responsible to conduct.




Thanks, Paul


Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114


_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:17 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Cc: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions




While not an outside list, the Department of Defense's web site for the
Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) includes information on
lots of AT devices and some pretty good language as to their utility. Could
we consider referencing this site as an example of what AT might be, but not
limited to, defined as?

http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm







"jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

05/29/2007 10:21 AM


Please respond to
"TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To

"TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


cc


Subject

Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions





An outside list is okay if it is controlling. I think we need to rely on
the consumers for this issue. The bottom line is that the current
methodology is not working so we need to rethink how to approach this.

Best,

Janice
On May 29, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Jessica M. Brodey wrote:

I think Andrew, Tom, and Gregg all have valid points. First, captioning is
a means of providing access through technology, but it is not necessarily
assistive technology. Second, creating a list can be dangerous - there is
the risk of excluding technologies (which then may not be provided upon
request because they are not on the list), a list quickly becomes outdated,
and it could potentially stifle innovation. If some people feel that a list
is critical, perhaps we can ask the Access Board to publish a non-normative
list outside the regulations.



Jessica Brodey




_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom Brett
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 2:56 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions



The concern I would have is that by specifying particular types of assistive
technology would be that you will limit future innovation. The government
could read that all I need is to provide captions and then new technology
comes out that provides seamless ASL



Tom Brett




_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 9:43 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions



The language "such as but not limited to" is critical but it is also
critical that the items are listed in alphabetical order so that one item is
not more important than another.



The reason we need to list is that no one outside maybe a 100 people :)
understands what assistive technology is.:) In the past few week, I have
been asked countless times, "is there a list in the law that I can refer
to". When I explain that the language is meant to be tailored to the
individual, the person who is supposed to implement the access is
exasperated. While this has been in the museum setting, it has also been in
the National Park setting. It sounds wonderful in theory but in reality, no
one understands generalities. Therefore nothing gets done because no one
has time to do the research or if it does get done, the information gathered
is based on what vendors want to sell.:)



On a personal note, years ago, the Department of Education did not want to
provide a service that was clearly needed and required . They told me that
they were not required to provide it. When I showed then the service was
listed in the legislation with "such as but not limited to" language, the
service was provided. :) If this list was not provided, I would have had to
sue them. People who have disabilities can make suing people a full-time
job. :) This is not a good option. Clarity is.



The way the law is set-up now is clearly not working. It is time for a
change and the use of the language"such as but not limited to" with examples
listed in alphabetical order can be inserted and used as a guide and
starting point for appropriate access. We as a group need to remember that
the goal here is to not only assist the procurement officers but also the
end user who can point to legal language to obtain what they need when there
may be an artificial barrier (a boss :) ) who is preventing the person from
obtaining the appropriate access they need to have appropriate access.



Enjoy the rest of the weekend!



Best,



Janice













On May 25, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:



Concur.



Also we don't want to start listing AT. Where do you stop. Who feels left
out. Dangerous way to define.






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






I don't agree that equivalents such as audio description or captioning are
assistive technology. An argument could be made that a caption decoder is
AT, but not the captions.

AWK



_____


From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:09 PM
To: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A
Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

I have added my additions below in red. Please note, my suggestions are in
alphabetical order. :)





On May 25, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Diane Golden wrote:





The following is what I have drafted based on the feedback at the meeting.
New language is in CAPS.

Diane



Assistive Technology means any item, piece of equipment, or system, whether
acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is commonly used to
increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with
disabilities. AS USED IN THIS PART, THE TERM INCLUDES TRADITIONAL ASSISTIVE
TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ALONG WITH VIRTUAL ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY
DELIVERED AS A WEB SERVICE AND INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTS INTO A SYSTEM THAT
PROVIDES ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES TO ACCESS ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY such as but not
limited to assistive listening devices, audio description, captioning.



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

-----Original Message-----
From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:22 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

Generally notes that are immediately adjacent a definition in a standard
cannot change the meaning in the standard but can explain what it already
says. So they don't have the same effect as the definition - but since they
are explaining what it says - the definition would convey their weight.
However - for the regulations it may be that any notes would end up back in
the front matter rather than with the definition. In that case we may want
to / need to embed the info in the definition somehow. Like

Definition

Assistive technology: Assistive technology means .. devices, systems
(including web services and integrated products that deliver assistive
services), yada yada yada.


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



_____


From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jessica M.
Brodey
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:56 AM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

This revised definition addresses ATIA's concerns stated yesterday during
the Subpart A report. We would support adopting this. One question -
should Note 1 and Note 2 be treated as subsections and included in the
regulation to give it the same force as the definition?

Jessica




_____


From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:11 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

A way to meet the concerns that led to including the term "SERVICE" and "IN
ACCESSING E&IT"

(without creating the problems and grief that will come from trying to
change the definition of AT)

might be to keep definition but add notes that would be included with the
definition .

like this:

Definition

Assistive technology: Assistive technology means.etc etc etc (standard
definition)

Note 1: Virtual Assistive technology delivered as a web service, and
integration of different products into a system that provides assistive
functions to people with disabilities, are two examples of things that are
included in the term 'systems' in this definition.

Note 2: Within this Part, Assistive Technology means Assistive technology
used in accessing E&IT.


Gregg

------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848

DSS Player at <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b> http://tinyurl.com/dho6b

If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/

<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>

From: jagbell
Date: Tue, May 29 2007 12:15 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

Again, that sounds great in theory but what do you do when someone
else says, no its not? :)





On May 29, 2007, at 1:53 PM, David Poehlman wrote:

> Assistive technology includes techniques so why would captioning
> and audio
> description not be AT? I think if we describe its functionality
> which will
> remain forever, we don't need a list?
>
> Asistive technology provides the means to access and or interact with
> information technology which permit those who cannot hear, see,
> manipulate...?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
> We need to be stronger than consideration. :) I am not sure how many
> people on the committee use AT but as you all know, our daughter
> does. The practical aspects are a nightmare. There are very few
> places in this country that have appropriate access and it is because
> no one understands what it means. I am happy to provide names and
> numbers of people who have requested this. We need to stop
> exacerbating the problem and come up with a solution that really
> works. :) It is not working at all which is why I am pushing so
> hard. A person with a disability is at the mercy of whoever is in
> charge whether it is a procurement person or an access person. No
> one's life should be at someone else's mercy. It is time for a
> change.:)
>
>
> On May 29, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>
>> Here is what I have drafted as a suggestion for technical
>> assistance per
>> Access Board as related to the revised defintion of AT.
>>
>> Diane
>>
>>
>>
>> Possible Technical Assistance Information for Access Board
>> consideration-
>>
>> Reference AT resource lists such as the federal CAP listing of
>> assistive
>> technology used in accommodations (
>> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm>
>> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm) or the
>> Assistive Technology Act federally funded National Public Website on
>> Assistive Technology ( http://assistivetech.net <http://
>> assistivetech.net/>
>> ). The Access Board could also consider recommending that each
>> agency
>> compile a list of the AT typically used in that agency. If made
>> public,
>> such information could be helpful in understanding the range of
>> items used
>> by federal agencies and could prove helpful to vendors, agencies and
>> consumers.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>> Schomburg, Paul
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:57 AM
>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>> Cc: Schomburg, Paul
>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>>
>>
>> Folks: Alternatively, could the Access Board recommend that each
>> agency
>> compile its own list of what AT it uses? If this is public
>> information it
>> could be used to compile a government-wide list of AT used by the
>> Federal
>> Government. Reference to each agency's list could be included as
>> part of
>> the market research requirements that each agency is responsible to
>> conduct.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
>>
>> Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114
>>
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:17 AM
>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>> Cc: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; teitac-subparta-
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> While not an outside list, the Department of Defense's web site for
>> the
>> Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) includes
>> information on
>> lots of AT devices and some pretty good language as to their
>> utility. Could
>> we consider referencing this site as an example of what AT might
>> be, but not
>> limited to, defined as?
>>
>> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm
>> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>
>> 05/29/2007 10:21 AM
>>
>>
>> Please respond to
>> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>
>>
>> To
>>
>> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>
>>
>> cc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Subject
>>
>> Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> An outside list is okay if it is controlling. I think we need to
>> rely on
>> the consumers for this issue. The bottom line is that the current
>> methodology is not working so we need to rethink how to approach
>> this.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Janice
>> On May 29, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Jessica M. Brodey wrote:
>>
>> I think Andrew, Tom, and Gregg all have valid points. First,
>> captioning is
>> a means of providing access through technology, but it is not
>> necessarily
>> assistive technology. Second, creating a list can be dangerous -
>> there is
>> the risk of excluding technologies (which then may not be provided
>> upon
>> request because they are not on the list), a list quickly becomes
>> outdated,
>> and it could potentially stifle innovation. If some people feel
>> that a list
>> is critical, perhaps we can ask the Access Board to publish a non-
>> normative
>> list outside the regulations.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jessica Brodey
>>
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom
>> Brett
>> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 2:56 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>>
>>
>> The concern I would have is that by specifying particular types of
>> assistive
>> technology would be that you will limit future innovation. The
>> government
>> could read that all I need is to provide captions and then new
>> technology
>> comes out that provides seamless ASL
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom Brett
>>
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
>> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 9:43 AM
>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>>
>>
>> The language "such as but not limited to" is critical but it is also
>> critical that the items are listed in alphabetical order so that
>> one item is
>> not more important than another.
>>
>>
>>
>> The reason we need to list is that no one outside maybe a 100
>> people :)
>> understands what assistive technology is.:) In the past few week,
>> I have
>> been asked countless times, "is there a list in the law that I can
>> refer
>> to". When I explain that the language is meant to be tailored to the
>> individual, the person who is supposed to implement the access is
>> exasperated. While this has been in the museum setting, it has
>> also been in
>> the National Park setting. It sounds wonderful in theory but in
>> reality, no
>> one understands generalities. Therefore nothing gets done because
>> no one
>> has time to do the research or if it does get done, the information
>> gathered
>> is based on what vendors want to sell.:)
>>
>>
>>
>> On a personal note, years ago, the Department of Education did not
>> want to
>> provide a service that was clearly needed and required . They told
>> me that
>> they were not required to provide it. When I showed then the
>> service was
>> listed in the legislation with "such as but not limited to"
>> language, the
>> service was provided. :) If this list was not provided, I would
>> have had to
>> sue them. People who have disabilities can make suing people a
>> full-time
>> job. :) This is not a good option. Clarity is.
>>
>>
>>
>> The way the law is set-up now is clearly not working. It is time
>> for a
>> change and the use of the language"such as but not limited to" with
>> examples
>> listed in alphabetical order can be inserted and used as a guide and
>> starting point for appropriate access. We as a group need to
>> remember that
>> the goal here is to not only assist the procurement officers but
>> also the
>> end user who can point to legal language to obtain what they need
>> when there
>> may be an artificial barrier (a boss :) ) who is preventing the
>> person from
>> obtaining the appropriate access they need to have appropriate
>> access.
>>
>>
>>
>> Enjoy the rest of the weekend!
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Janice
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 25, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Concur.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also we don't want to start listing AT. Where do you stop. Who
>> feels left
>> out. Dangerous way to define.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't agree that equivalents such as audio description or
>> captioning are
>> assistive technology. An argument could be made that a caption
>> decoder is
>> AT, but not the captions.
>>
>> AWK
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:09 PM
>> To: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC
>> Subpart A
>> Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>> I have added my additions below in red. Please note, my
>> suggestions are in
>> alphabetical order. :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 25, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The following is what I have drafted based on the feedback at the
>> meeting.
>> New language is in CAPS.
>>
>> Diane
>>
>>
>>
>> Assistive Technology means any item, piece of equipment, or system,
>> whether
>> acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is commonly
>> used to
>> increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of
>> individuals with
>> disabilities. AS USED IN THIS PART, THE TERM INCLUDES TRADITIONAL
>> ASSISTIVE
>> TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ALONG WITH VIRTUAL ASSISTIVE
>> TECHNOLOGY
>> DELIVERED AS A WEB SERVICE AND INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTS INTO A
>> SYSTEM THAT
>> PROVIDES ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS WITH
>> DISABILITIES TO ACCESS ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY such
>> as but not
>> limited to assistive listening devices, audio description,
>> captioning.
>>
>>
>>
>> Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
>> Missouri Assistive Technology
>> 816/350-5280 (direct voice)
>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> www.at.mo.gov
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
>> Vanderheiden
>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:22 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>> Generally notes that are immediately adjacent a definition in a
>> standard
>> cannot change the meaning in the standard but can explain what it
>> already
>> says. So they don't have the same effect as the definition - but
>> since they
>> are explaining what it says - the definition would convey their
>> weight.
>> However - for the regulations it may be that any notes would end up
>> back in
>> the front matter rather than with the definition. In that case we
>> may want
>> to / need to embed the info in the definition somehow. Like
>>
>> Definition
>>
>> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means ...... devices,
>> systems
>> (including web services and integrated products that deliver
>> assistive
>> services), yada yada yada.
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> Jessica M.
>> Brodey
>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:56 AM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>> This revised definition addresses ATIA's concerns stated yesterday
>> during
>> the Subpart A report. We would support adopting this. One
>> question -
>> should Note 1 and Note 2 be treated as subsections and included in
>> the
>> regulation to give it the same force as the definition?
>>
>> Jessica
>>
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
>> Vanderheiden
>> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:11 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>> A way to meet the concerns that led to including the term "SERVICE"
>> and "IN
>> ACCESSING E&IT"
>>
>> (without creating the problems and grief that will come from
>> trying to
>> change the definition of AT)
>>
>> might be to keep definition but add notes that would be included
>> with the
>> definition .
>>
>> like this:
>>
>> Definition
>>
>> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means...etc etc etc
>> (standard
>> definition)
>>
>> Note 1: Virtual Assistive technology delivered as a web service, and
>> integration of different products into a system that provides
>> assistive
>> functions to people with disabilities, are two examples of things
>> that are
>> included in the term 'systems' in this definition.
>>
>> Note 2: Within this Part, Assistive Technology means Assistive
>> technology
>> used in accessing E&IT.
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>>
>> ------------------------
>>
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>> Director - Trace R & D Center
>> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>> < <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
>>
>> DSS Player at <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b> http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>>
>> If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
>> http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>>
>> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

From: Diane Golden
Date: Tue, May 29 2007 12:50 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

That more global note approach works fine as a stand alone sort of
recommendation if everyone is agreeable.

Just to clarify, the definition of assistive technology in Section 508 rules
will not create any right of access to assistive technology for individuals
with disabilities. So even if an AT list is created or referenced, it does
not provide a right of access to everything on that list because the Section
508 statute doesn't require access to all available or needed AT. That
occurs under other legal mandates such as Section 504, ADA, or IDEA.

Diane
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 12:58 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions



This might work well as part of a general recommendation to the Access
Board:

"The Committee recommends that the Access Board develop or participate in
the development of
informational materials that would be useful to federal agencies and others
in the implementation
of the regulations. These resources could include:

- assistive technologies, both categories and specific models, used by
agencies and individuals
- implementation notes on the compatibility of assistive technologies and
E&IT products and services
- implementation notes on the accessibility features of E&IT products and
services
- results of Section 508 market research performed by federal agencies"

Anyone think of other information resources that could be developed and
shared?


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





----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
From: jagbell [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:33 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions


I think that would be a fabulous idea. This way there would be one list.


Janice

On May 29, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Schomburg, Paul wrote:


Folks: Alternatively, could the Access Board recommend that each agency
compile its own list of what AT it uses? If this is public information it
could be used to compile a government-wide list of AT used by the Federal
Government. Reference to each agency's list could be included as part of
the market research requirements that each agency is responsible to conduct.


Thanks, Paul

Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:17 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Cc: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee;
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions



While not an outside list, the Department of Defense's web site for the
Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) includes information on
lots of AT devices and some pretty good language as to their utility. Could
we consider referencing this site as an example of what AT might be, but not
limited to, defined as?

http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm






"jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

05/29/2007 10:21 AM

Please respond to
"TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To
"TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

cc


Subject
Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions












An outside list is okay if it is controlling. I think we need to rely
on the consumers for this issue. The bottom line is that the current
methodology is not working so we need to rethink how to approach this.

Best,

Janice
On May 29, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Jessica M. Brodey wrote:

I think Andrew, Tom, and Gregg all have valid points. First, captioning
is a means of providing access through technology, but it is not necessarily
assistive technology. Second, creating a list can be dangerous - there is
the risk of excluding technologies (which then may not be provided upon
request because they are not on the list), a list quickly becomes outdated,
and it could potentially stifle innovation. If some people feel that a list
is critical, perhaps we can ask the Access Board to publish a non-normative
list outside the regulations.



Jessica Brodey




----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom Brett
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 2:56 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions



The concern I would have is that by specifying particular types of
assistive technology would be that you will limit future innovation. The
government could read that all I need is to provide captions and then new
technology comes out that provides seamless ASL



Tom Brett




----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 9:43 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions



The language "such as but not limited to" is critical but it is also
critical that the items are listed in alphabetical order so that one item is
not more important than another.



The reason we need to list is that no one outside maybe a 100 people :)
understands what assistive technology is.:) In the past few week, I have
been asked countless times, "is there a list in the law that I can refer
to". When I explain that the language is meant to be tailored to the
individual, the person who is supposed to implement the access is
exasperated. While this has been in the museum setting, it has also been in
the National Park setting. It sounds wonderful in theory but in reality, no
one understands generalities. Therefore nothing gets done because no one
has time to do the research or if it does get done, the information gathered
is based on what vendors want to sell.:)



On a personal note, years ago, the Department of Education did not want
to provide a service that was clearly needed and required . They told me
that they were not required to provide it. When I showed then the service
was listed in the legislation with "such as but not limited to" language,
the service was provided. :) If this list was not provided, I would have
had to sue them. People who have disabilities can make suing people a
full-time job. :) This is not a good option. Clarity is.



The way the law is set-up now is clearly not working. It is time for a
change and the use of the language"such as but not limited to" with examples
listed in alphabetical order can be inserted and used as a guide and
starting point for appropriate access. We as a group need to remember that
the goal here is to not only assist the procurement officers but also the
end user who can point to legal language to obtain what they need when there
may be an artificial barrier (a boss :) ) who is preventing the person from
obtaining the appropriate access they need to have appropriate access.



Enjoy the rest of the weekend!



Best,



Janice













On May 25, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:



Concur.



Also we don't want to start listing AT. Where do you stop. Who feels
left out. Dangerous way to define.






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






I don't agree that equivalents such as audio description or captioning
are assistive technology. An argument could be made that a caption decoder
is AT, but not the captions.

AWK



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:09 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

I have added my additions below in red. Please note, my suggestions are
in alphabetical order. :)





On May 25, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Diane Golden wrote:




The following is what I have drafted based on the feedback at the
meeting. New language is in CAPS.

Diane



Assistive Technology means any item, piece of equipment, or system,
whether acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is commonly
used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of
individuals with disabilities. AS USED IN THIS PART, THE TERM INCLUDES
TRADITIONAL ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ALONG WITH VIRTUAL
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY DELIVERED AS A WEB SERVICE AND INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTS
INTO A SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS ALLOWING
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES TO ACCESS ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY such as but not limited to assistive listening devices, audio
description, captioning.



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

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:22 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

Generally notes that are immediately adjacent a definition in a standard
cannot change the meaning in the standard but can explain what it already
says. So they don't have the same effect as the definition - but since they
are explaining what it says - the definition would convey their weight.
However - for the regulations it may be that any notes would end up back in
the front matter rather than with the definition. In that case we may want
to / need to embed the info in the definition somehow. Like

Definition

Assistive technology: Assistive technology means .. devices, systems
(including web services and integrated products that deliver assistive
services), yada yada yada.


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



----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jessica M.
Brodey
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:56 AM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

This revised definition addresses ATIA's concerns stated yesterday
during the Subpart A report. We would support adopting this. One
question - should Note 1 and Note 2 be treated as subsections and included
in the regulation to give it the same force as the definition?

Jessica




----------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:11 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

A way to meet the concerns that led to including the term "SERVICE" and
"IN ACCESSING E&IT"

(without creating the problems and grief that will come from trying to
change the definition of AT)

might be to keep definition but add notes that would be included with
the definition .

like this:

Definition

Assistive technology: Assistive technology means.etc etc etc (standard
definition)

Note 1: Virtual Assistive technology delivered as a web service, and
integration of different products into a system that provides assistive
functions to people with disabilities, are two examples of things that are
included in the term 'systems' in this definition.

Note 2: Within this Part, Assistive Technology means Assistive
technology used in accessing E&IT.


Gregg

------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
<http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848

DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b

If Attachement is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/

From: Tom Brett
Date: Tue, May 29 2007 12:55 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

Right.also there is a real possibility that IF the Federal agencies develop
a list it will not be maintained. Unless it is a mandate from OMB or a
legal requirement, agencies are too busy to develop a list of AT that may
or not be used.



Tom Brett



_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 2:52 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions



That more global note approach works fine as a stand alone sort of
recommendation if everyone is agreeable.



Just to clarify, the definition of assistive technology in Section 508 rules
will not create any right of access to assistive technology for individuals
with disabilities. So even if an AT list is created or referenced, it does
not provide a right of access to everything on that list because the Section
508 statute doesn't require access to all available or needed AT. That
occurs under other legal mandates such as Section 504, ADA, or IDEA.



Diane

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 12:58 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

This might work well as part of a general recommendation to the Access
Board:



"The Committee recommends that the Access Board develop or participate in
the development of

informational materials that would be useful to federal agencies and others
in the implementation

of the regulations. These resources could include:



- assistive technologies, both categories and specific models, used by
agencies and individuals

- implementation notes on the compatibility of assistive technologies and
E&IT products and services

- implementation notes on the accessibility features of E&IT products and
services

- results of Section 508 market research performed by federal agencies"



Anyone think of other information resources that could be developed and
shared?





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






_____


From: jagbell [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:33 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

I think that would be a fabulous idea. This way there would be one list.



Janice

On May 29, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Schomburg, Paul wrote:





Folks: Alternatively, could the Access Board recommend that each agency
compile its own list of what AT it uses? If this is public information it
could be used to compile a government-wide list of AT used by the Federal
Government. Reference to each agency's list could be included as part of
the market research requirements that each agency is responsible to conduct.


Thanks, Paul

Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager

Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114



_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:17 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Cc: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions


While not an outside list, the Department of Defense's web site for the
Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) includes information on
lots of AT devices and some pretty good language as to their utility. Could
we consider referencing this site as an example of what AT might be, but not
limited to, defined as?

http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm








"jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

05/29/2007 10:21 AM


Please respond to
"TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To

"TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


cc




Subject

Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions











An outside list is okay if it is controlling. I think we need to rely on
the consumers for this issue. The bottom line is that the current
methodology is not working so we need to rethink how to approach this.

Best,

Janice
On May 29, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Jessica M. Brodey wrote:

I think Andrew, Tom, and Gregg all have valid points. First, captioning is
a means of providing access through technology, but it is not necessarily
assistive technology. Second, creating a list can be dangerous - there is
the risk of excluding technologies (which then may not be provided upon
request because they are not on the list), a list quickly becomes outdated,
and it could potentially stifle innovation. If some people feel that a list
is critical, perhaps we can ask the Access Board to publish a non-normative
list outside the regulations.



Jessica Brodey




_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom Brett
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 2:56 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions



The concern I would have is that by specifying particular types of assistive
technology would be that you will limit future innovation. The government
could read that all I need is to provide captions and then new technology
comes out that provides seamless ASL



Tom Brett




_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 9:43 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions



The language "such as but not limited to" is critical but it is also
critical that the items are listed in alphabetical order so that one item is
not more important than another.



The reason we need to list is that no one outside maybe a 100 people :)
understands what assistive technology is.:) In the past few week, I have
been asked countless times, "is there a list in the law that I can refer
to". When I explain that the language is meant to be tailored to the
individual, the person who is supposed to implement the access is
exasperated. While this has been in the museum setting, it has also been in
the National Park setting. It sounds wonderful in theory but in reality, no
one understands generalities. Therefore nothing gets done because no one
has time to do the research or if it does get done, the information gathered
is based on what vendors want to sell.:)



On a personal note, years ago, the Department of Education did not want to
provide a service that was clearly needed and required . They told me that
they were not required to provide it. When I showed then the service was
listed in the legislation with "such as but not limited to" language, the
service was provided. :) If this list was not provided, I would have had to
sue them. People who have disabilities can make suing people a full-time
job. :) This is not a good option. Clarity is.



The way the law is set-up now is clearly not working. It is time for a
change and the use of the language"such as but not limited to" with examples
listed in alphabetical order can be inserted and used as a guide and
starting point for appropriate access. We as a group need to remember that
the goal here is to not only assist the procurement officers but also the
end user who can point to legal language to obtain what they need when there
may be an artificial barrier (a boss :) ) who is preventing the person from
obtaining the appropriate access they need to have appropriate access.



Enjoy the rest of the weekend!



Best,



Janice













On May 25, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:



Concur.



Also we don't want to start listing AT. Where do you stop. Who feels left
out. Dangerous way to define.






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






I don't agree that equivalents such as audio description or captioning are
assistive technology. An argument could be made that a caption decoder is
AT, but not the captions.

AWK



_____


From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:09 PM
To: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A
Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

I have added my additions below in red. Please note, my suggestions are in
alphabetical order. :)





On May 25, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Diane Golden wrote:



The following is what I have drafted based on the feedback at the meeting.
New language is in CAPS.

Diane



Assistive Technology means any item, piece of equipment, or system, whether
acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is commonly used to
increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with
disabilities. AS USED IN THIS PART, THE TERM INCLUDES TRADITIONAL ASSISTIVE
TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ALONG WITH VIRTUAL ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY
DELIVERED AS A WEB SERVICE AND INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTS INTO A SYSTEM THAT
PROVIDES ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES TO ACCESS ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY such as but not
limited to assistive listening devices, audio description, captioning.



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

-----Original Message-----
From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:22 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

Generally notes that are immediately adjacent a definition in a standard
cannot change the meaning in the standard but can explain what it already
says. So they don't have the same effect as the definition - but since they
are explaining what it says - the definition would convey their weight.
However - for the regulations it may be that any notes would end up back in
the front matter rather than with the definition. In that case we may want
to / need to embed the info in the definition somehow. Like

Definition

Assistive technology: Assistive technology means .. devices, systems
(including web services and integrated products that deliver assistive
services), yada yada yada.


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



_____


From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jessica M.
Brodey
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:56 AM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

This revised definition addresses ATIA's concerns stated yesterday during
the Subpart A report. We would support adopting this. One question -
should Note 1 and Note 2 be treated as subsections and included in the
regulation to give it the same force as the definition?

Jessica




_____


From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:11 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

A way to meet the concerns that led to including the term "SERVICE" and "IN
ACCESSING E&IT"

(without creating the problems and grief that will come from trying to
change the definition of AT)

might be to keep definition but add notes that would be included with the
definition .

like this:

Definition

Assistive technology: Assistive technology means.etc etc etc (standard
definition)

Note 1: Virtual Assistive technology delivered as a web service, and
integration of different products into a system that provides assistive
functions to people with disabilities, are two examples of things that are
included in the term 'systems' in this definition.

Note 2: Within this Part, Assistive Technology means Assistive technology
used in accessing E&IT.


Gregg

------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848

DSS Player at <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b> http://tinyurl.com/dho6b

If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/

<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>

From: Jessica M. Brodey
Date: Tue, May 29 2007 1:00 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

Thank you, Diane, that was well-stated. Furthermore, as others have already
mentioned, the creation of a list can possibly have just as many pitfalls as
government entities look to and rely upon that list during the course of
procurement - it could result in stifling innovation of new products, or a
believe that IT does not need to work with any AT not on the list.



Jessica



_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 2:52 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions



That more global note approach works fine as a stand alone sort of
recommendation if everyone is agreeable.



Just to clarify, the definition of assistive technology in Section 508 rules
will not create any right of access to assistive technology for individuals
with disabilities. So even if an AT list is created or referenced, it does
not provide a right of access to everything on that list because the Section
508 statute doesn't require access to all available or needed AT. That
occurs under other legal mandates such as Section 504, ADA, or IDEA.



Diane

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 12:58 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

This might work well as part of a general recommendation to the Access
Board:



"The Committee recommends that the Access Board develop or participate in
the development of

informational materials that would be useful to federal agencies and others
in the implementation

of the regulations. These resources could include:



- assistive technologies, both categories and specific models, used by
agencies and individuals

- implementation notes on the compatibility of assistive technologies and
E&IT products and services

- implementation notes on the accessibility features of E&IT products and
services

- results of Section 508 market research performed by federal agencies"



Anyone think of other information resources that could be developed and
shared?





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






_____


From: jagbell [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:33 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

I think that would be a fabulous idea. This way there would be one list.



Janice

On May 29, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Schomburg, Paul wrote:





Folks: Alternatively, could the Access Board recommend that each agency
compile its own list of what AT it uses? If this is public information it
could be used to compile a government-wide list of AT used by the Federal
Government. Reference to each agency's list could be included as part of
the market research requirements that each agency is responsible to conduct.


Thanks, Paul

Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager

Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114



_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:17 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Cc: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions


While not an outside list, the Department of Defense's web site for the
Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) includes information on
lots of AT devices and some pretty good language as to their utility. Could
we consider referencing this site as an example of what AT might be, but not
limited to, defined as?

http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm








"jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

05/29/2007 10:21 AM


Please respond to
"TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To

"TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


cc




Subject

Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions











An outside list is okay if it is controlling. I think we need to rely on
the consumers for this issue. The bottom line is that the current
methodology is not working so we need to rethink how to approach this.

Best,

Janice
On May 29, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Jessica M. Brodey wrote:

I think Andrew, Tom, and Gregg all have valid points. First, captioning is
a means of providing access through technology, but it is not necessarily
assistive technology. Second, creating a list can be dangerous - there is
the risk of excluding technologies (which then may not be provided upon
request because they are not on the list), a list quickly becomes outdated,
and it could potentially stifle innovation. If some people feel that a list
is critical, perhaps we can ask the Access Board to publish a non-normative
list outside the regulations.



Jessica Brodey




_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom Brett
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 2:56 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions



The concern I would have is that by specifying particular types of assistive
technology would be that you will limit future innovation. The government
could read that all I need is to provide captions and then new technology
comes out that provides seamless ASL



Tom Brett




_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 9:43 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions



The language "such as but not limited to" is critical but it is also
critical that the items are listed in alphabetical order so that one item is
not more important than another.



The reason we need to list is that no one outside maybe a 100 people :)
understands what assistive technology is.:) In the past few week, I have
been asked countless times, "is there a list in the law that I can refer
to". When I explain that the language is meant to be tailored to the
individual, the person who is supposed to implement the access is
exasperated. While this has been in the museum setting, it has also been in
the National Park setting. It sounds wonderful in theory but in reality, no
one understands generalities. Therefore nothing gets done because no one
has time to do the research or if it does get done, the information gathered
is based on what vendors want to sell.:)



On a personal note, years ago, the Department of Education did not want to
provide a service that was clearly needed and required . They told me that
they were not required to provide it. When I showed then the service was
listed in the legislation with "such as but not limited to" language, the
service was provided. :) If this list was not provided, I would have had to
sue them. People who have disabilities can make suing people a full-time
job. :) This is not a good option. Clarity is.



The way the law is set-up now is clearly not working. It is time for a
change and the use of the language"such as but not limited to" with examples
listed in alphabetical order can be inserted and used as a guide and
starting point for appropriate access. We as a group need to remember that
the goal here is to not only assist the procurement officers but also the
end user who can point to legal language to obtain what they need when there
may be an artificial barrier (a boss :) ) who is preventing the person from
obtaining the appropriate access they need to have appropriate access.



Enjoy the rest of the weekend!



Best,



Janice













On May 25, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:



Concur.



Also we don't want to start listing AT. Where do you stop. Who feels left
out. Dangerous way to define.






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






I don't agree that equivalents such as audio description or captioning are
assistive technology. An argument could be made that a caption decoder is
AT, but not the captions.

AWK



_____


From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:09 PM
To: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A
Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

I have added my additions below in red. Please note, my suggestions are in
alphabetical order. :)





On May 25, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Diane Golden wrote:



The following is what I have drafted based on the feedback at the meeting.
New language is in CAPS.

Diane



Assistive Technology means any item, piece of equipment, or system, whether
acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is commonly used to
increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of individuals with
disabilities. AS USED IN THIS PART, THE TERM INCLUDES TRADITIONAL ASSISTIVE
TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ALONG WITH VIRTUAL ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY
DELIVERED AS A WEB SERVICE AND INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTS INTO A SYSTEM THAT
PROVIDES ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS WITH
DISABILITIES TO ACCESS ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY such as but not
limited to assistive listening devices, audio description, captioning.



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

-----Original Message-----
From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:22 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

Generally notes that are immediately adjacent a definition in a standard
cannot change the meaning in the standard but can explain what it already
says. So they don't have the same effect as the definition - but since they
are explaining what it says - the definition would convey their weight.
However - for the regulations it may be that any notes would end up back in
the front matter rather than with the definition. In that case we may want
to / need to embed the info in the definition somehow. Like

Definition

Assistive technology: Assistive technology means .. devices, systems
(including web services and integrated products that deliver assistive
services), yada yada yada.


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



_____


From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jessica M.
Brodey
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:56 AM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

This revised definition addresses ATIA's concerns stated yesterday during
the Subpart A report. We would support adopting this. One question -
should Note 1 and Note 2 be treated as subsections and included in the
regulation to give it the same force as the definition?

Jessica




_____


From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:11 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

A way to meet the concerns that led to including the term "SERVICE" and "IN
ACCESSING E&IT"

(without creating the problems and grief that will come from trying to
change the definition of AT)

might be to keep definition but add notes that would be included with the
definition .

like this:

Definition

Assistive technology: Assistive technology means.etc etc etc (standard
definition)

Note 1: Virtual Assistive technology delivered as a web service, and
integration of different products into a system that provides assistive
functions to people with disabilities, are two examples of things that are
included in the term 'systems' in this definition.

Note 2: Within this Part, Assistive Technology means Assistive technology
used in accessing E&IT.


Gregg

------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848

DSS Player at <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b> http://tinyurl.com/dho6b

If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/

<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>

From: terry.weaver@gsa.gov
Date: Tue, May 29 2007 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

I don't think that the last point should be included - it isn't at all an
easy thing to collect and some agencies consider this info to be
acquisition sensitive information. Section 508 market research
information really hasn't anything to do with assistive technology either.




"Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
05/29/2007 02:52 PM
Please respond to
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; Please respond to
"TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


To
"'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
cc

Subject
Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions






That more global note approach works fine as a stand alone sort of
recommendation if everyone is agreeable.

Just to clarify, the definition of assistive technology in Section 508
rules will not create any right of access to assistive technology for
individuals with disabilities. So even if an AT list is created or
referenced, it does not provide a right of access to everything on that
list because the Section 508 statute doesn't require access to all
available or needed AT. That occurs under other legal mandates such as
Section 504, ADA, or IDEA.

Diane
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 12:58 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

This might work well as part of a general recommendation to the Access
Board:

"The Committee recommends that the Access Board develop or participate in
the development of
informational materials that would be useful to federal agencies and
others in the implementation
of the regulations. These resources could include:

- assistive technologies, both categories and specific models, used by
agencies and individuals
- implementation notes on the compatibility of assistive technologies and
E&IT products and services
- implementation notes on the accessibility features of E&IT products and
services
- results of Section 508 market research performed by federal agencies"

Anyone think of other information resources that could be developed and
shared?


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


From: jagbell [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:33 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

I think that would be a fabulous idea. This way there would be one list.

Janice
On May 29, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Schomburg, Paul wrote:

Folks: Alternatively, could the Access Board recommend that each agency
compile its own list of what AT it uses? If this is public information it
could be used to compile a government-wide list of AT used by the Federal
Government. Reference to each agency�s list could be included as part of
the market research requirements that each agency is responsible to
conduct.
Thanks, Paul
Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:17 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Cc: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

While not an outside list, the Department of Defense's web site for the
Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) includes information on
lots of AT devices and some pretty good language as to their utility.
Could we consider referencing this site as an example of what AT might be,
but not limited to, defined as?

http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm




"jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
05/29/2007 10:21 AM


Please respond to
"TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >



To
"TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
cc

Subject
Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions








An outside list is okay if it is controlling. I think we need to rely on
the consumers for this issue. The bottom line is that the current
methodology is not working so we need to rethink how to approach this.

Best,

Janice
On May 29, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Jessica M. Brodey wrote:
I think Andrew, Tom, and Gregg all have valid points. First, captioning
is a means of providing access through technology, but it is not
necessarily assistive technology. Second, creating a list can be
dangerous � there is the risk of excluding technologies (which then may
not be provided upon request because they are not on the list), a list
quickly becomes outdated, and it could potentially stifle innovation. If
some people feel that a list is critical, perhaps we can ask the Access
Board to publish a non-normative list outside the regulations.

Jessica Brodey


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom Brett
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 2:56 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

The concern I would have is that by specifying particular types of
assistive technology would be that you will limit future innovation. The
government could read that all I need is to provide captions and then new
technology comes out that provides seamless ASL

Tom Brett


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 9:43 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions

The language "such as but not limited to" is critical but it is also
critical that the items are listed in alphabetical order so that one item
is not more important than another.

The reason we need to list is that no one outside maybe a 100 people :)
understands what assistive technology is.:) In the past few week, I have
been asked countless times, "is there a list in the law that I can refer
to". When I explain that the language is meant to be tailored to the
individual, the person who is supposed to implement the access is
exasperated. While this has been in the museum setting, it has also been
in the National Park setting. It sounds wonderful in theory but in
reality, no one understands generalities. Therefore nothing gets done
because no one has time to do the research or if it does get done, the
information gathered is based on what vendors want to sell.:)

On a personal note, years ago, the Department of Education did not want to
provide a service that was clearly needed and required . They told me
that they were not required to provide it. When I showed then the service
was listed in the legislation with "such as but not limited to" language,
the service was provided. :) If this list was not provided, I would have
had to sue them. People who have disabilities can make suing people a
full-time job. :) This is not a good option. Clarity is.

The way the law is set-up now is clearly not working. It is time for a
change and the use of the language"such as but not limited to" with
examples listed in alphabetical order can be inserted and used as a guide
and starting point for appropriate access. We as a group need to remember
that the goal here is to not only assist the procurement officers but also
the end user who can point to legal language to obtain what they need when
there may be an artificial barrier (a boss :) ) who is preventing the
person from obtaining the appropriate access they need to have appropriate
access.

Enjoy the rest of the weekend!

Best,

Janice






On May 25, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

Concur.

Also we don't want to start listing AT. Where do you stop. Who feels
left out. Dangerous way to define.



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



I don't agree that equivalents such as audio description or captioning are
assistive technology. An argument could be made that a caption decoder is
AT, but not the captions.
AWK


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:09 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
I have added my additions below in red. Please note, my suggestions are
in alphabetical order. :)


On May 25, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Diane Golden wrote:

The following is what I have drafted based on the feedback at the meeting.
New language is in CAPS.
Diane

Assistive Technology means any item, piece of equipment, or system,
whether acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is commonly
used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of
individuals with disabilities. AS USED IN THIS PART, THE TERM INCLUDES
TRADITIONAL ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ALONG WITH VIRTUAL
ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY DELIVERED AS A WEB SERVICE AND INTEGRATION OF
PRODUCTS INTO A SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS
ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES TO ACCESS ELECTRONIC AND
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY such as but not limited to assistive listening
devices, audio description, captioning.

Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
Missouri Assistive Technology
816/350-5280 (direct voice)
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
www.at.mo.gov
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:22 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
Generally notes that are immediately adjacent a definition in a standard
cannot change the meaning in the standard but can explain what it already
says. So they don't have the same effect as the definition � but since
they are explaining what it says � the definition would convey their
weight. However � for the regulations it may be that any notes would end
up back in the front matter rather than with the definition. In that case
we may want to / need to embed the info in the definition somehow. Like
Definition
Assistive technology: Assistive technology means �� devices, systems
(including web services and integrated products that deliver assistive
services), yada yada yada.

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


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jessica M.
Brodey
Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:56 AM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
This revised definition addresses ATIA�s concerns stated yesterday during
the Subpart A report. We would support adopting this. One question �
should Note 1 and Note 2 be treated as subsections and included in the
regulation to give it the same force as the definition?
Jessica


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:11 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
A way to meet the concerns that led to including the term �SERVICE� and
�IN ACCESSING E&IT�
(without creating the problems and grief that will come from trying to
change the definition of AT)
might be to keep definition but add notes that would be included with the
definition .
like this:
Definition
Assistive technology: Assistive technology means�etc etc etc (standard
definition)
Note 1: Virtual Assistive technology delivered as a web service, and
integration of different products into a system that provides assistive
functions to people with disabilities, are two examples of things that are
included in the term �systems� in this definition.
Note 2: Within this Part, Assistive Technology means Assistive
technology used in accessing E&IT.

Gregg

------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
<http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
If Attachement is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/

From: jagbell
Date: Tue, May 29 2007 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

i would list my objection firmly noted. As stand alone list is not
acceptable. How many of the participants are actually using the
technology versus purchasing it. I think it is important to
understand there is a big difference. These regulations were enacted
to help people and they are not doing what they were intended to do. :)



On May 29, 2007, at 2:57 PM, = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = wrote:

>
> I don't think that the last point should be included - it isn't at
> all an easy thing to collect and some agencies consider this info
> to be acquisition sensitive information. Section 508 market
> research information really hasn't anything to do with assistive
> technology either.
>
>
>
> "Diane Golden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> 05/29/2007 02:52 PM
> Please respond to
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; Please respond to
> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>
> To
> "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> cc
> Subject
> Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
>
>
>
> That more global note approach works fine as a stand alone sort of
> recommendation if everyone is agreeable.
>
> Just to clarify, the definition of assistive technology in Section
> 508 rules will not create any right of access to assistive
> technology for individuals with disabilities. So even if an AT
> list is created or referenced, it does not provide a right of
> access to everything on that list because the Section 508 statute
> doesn't require access to all available or needed AT. That occurs
> under other legal mandates such as Section 504, ADA, or IDEA.
>
> Diane
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 12:58 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
> This might work well as part of a general recommendation to the
> Access Board:
>
> "The Committee recommends that the Access Board develop or
> participate in the development of
> informational materials that would be useful to federal agencies
> and others in the implementation
> of the regulations. These resources could include:
>
> - assistive technologies, both categories and specific models, used
> by agencies and individuals
> - implementation notes on the compatibility of assistive
> technologies and E&IT products and services
> - implementation notes on the accessibility features of E&IT
> products and services
> - results of Section 508 market research performed by federal
> agencies"
>
> Anyone think of other information resources that could be developed
> and shared?
>
>
>
> ***
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> +1.908.907.2387 mobile
> skype jimtobias
>
>
>
>
> From: jagbell [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:33 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
> I think that would be a fabulous idea. This way there would be one
> list.
>
> Janice
> On May 29, 2007, at 11:56 AM, Schomburg, Paul wrote:
> Folks: Alternatively, could the Access Board recommend that each
> agency compile its own list of what AT it uses? If this is public
> information it could be used to compile a government-wide list of
> AT used by the Federal Government. Reference to each agency�s list
> could be included as part of the market research requirements that
> each agency is responsible to conduct.
>
> Thanks, Paul
> Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
> Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:17 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Cc: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; teitac-subparta-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
> While not an outside list, the Department of Defense's web site for
> the Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) includes
> information on lots of AT devices and some pretty good language as
> to their utility. Could we consider referencing this site as an
> example of what AT might be, but not limited to, defined as?
>
> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm
>
>
>
>
> "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> 05/29/2007 10:21 AM
>
>
> Please respond to
> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>
>
> To
> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> cc
> Subject
> Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> An outside list is okay if it is controlling. I think we need to
> rely on the consumers for this issue. The bottom line is that the
> current methodology is not working so we need to rethink how to
> approach this.
>
> Best,
>
> Janice
> On May 29, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Jessica M. Brodey wrote:
>
> I think Andrew, Tom, and Gregg all have valid points. First,
> captioning is a means of providing access through technology, but
> it is not necessarily assistive technology. Second, creating a
> list can be dangerous � there is the risk of excluding technologies
> (which then may not be provided upon request because they are not
> on the list), a list quickly becomes outdated, and it could
> potentially stifle innovation. If some people feel that a list is
> critical, perhaps we can ask the Access Board to publish a non-
> normative list outside the regulations.
>
>
> Jessica Brodey
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom Brett
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 2:56 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
> The concern I would have is that by specifying particular types of
> assistive technology would be that you will limit future
> innovation. The government could read that all I need is to
> provide captions and then new technology comes out that provides
> seamless ASL
>
>
> Tom Brett
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 9:43 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
> The language "such as but not limited to" is critical but it is
> also critical that the items are listed in alphabetical order so
> that one item is not more important than another.
>
>
> The reason we need to list is that no one outside maybe a 100
> people :) understands what assistive technology is.:) In the past
> few week, I have been asked countless times, "is there a list in
> the law that I can refer to". When I explain that the language is
> meant to be tailored to the individual, the person who is supposed
> to implement the access is exasperated. While this has been in the
> museum setting, it has also been in the National Park setting. It
> sounds wonderful in theory but in reality, no one understands
> generalities. Therefore nothing gets done because no one has time
> to do the research or if it does get done, the information gathered
> is based on what vendors want to sell.:)
>
>
> On a personal note, years ago, the Department of Education did not
> want to provide a service that was clearly needed and required .
> They told me that they were not required to provide it. When I
> showed then the service was listed in the legislation with "such as
> but not limited to" language, the service was provided. :) If this
> list was not provided, I would have had to sue them. People who
> have disabilities can make suing people a full-time job. :) This
> is not a good option. Clarity is.
>
>
> The way the law is set-up now is clearly not working. It is time
> for a change and the use of the language"such as but not limited
> to" with examples listed in alphabetical order can be inserted and
> used as a guide and starting point for appropriate access. We as a
> group need to remember that the goal here is to not only assist the
> procurement officers but also the end user who can point to legal
> language to obtain what they need when there may be an artificial
> barrier (a boss :) ) who is preventing the person from obtaining
> the appropriate access they need to have appropriate access.
>
>
> Enjoy the rest of the weekend!
>
>
> Best,
>
>
> Janice
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 25, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>
>
> Concur.
>
>
> Also we don't want to start listing AT. Where do you stop. Who
> feels left out. Dangerous way to define.
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
> I don't agree that equivalents such as audio description or
> captioning are assistive technology. An argument could be made
> that a caption decoder is AT, but not the captions.
>
> AWK
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:09 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
> I have added my additions below in red. Please note, my
> suggestions are in alphabetical order. :)
>
>
>
> On May 25, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>
>
> The following is what I have drafted based on the feedback at the
> meeting. New language is in CAPS.
>
> Diane
>
>
> Assistive Technology means any item, piece of equipment, or system,
> whether acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is
> commonly used to increase, maintain, or improve functional
> capabilities of individuals with disabilities. AS USED IN THIS
> PART, THE TERM INCLUDES TRADITIONAL ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE
> AND SOFTWARE ALONG WITH VIRTUAL ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY DELIVERED AS A
> WEB SERVICE AND INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTS INTO A SYSTEM THAT PROVIDES
> ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS WITH
> DISABILITIES TO ACCESS ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY such
> as but not limited to assistive listening devices, audio
> description, captioning.
>
>
> Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
> Missouri Assistive Technology
> 816/350-5280 (direct voice)
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> www.at.mo.gov
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:22 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
> Generally notes that are immediately adjacent a definition in a
> standard cannot change the meaning in the standard but can explain
> what it already says. So they don't have the same effect as the
> definition � but since they are explaining what it says � the
> definition would convey their weight. However � for the
> regulations it may be that any notes would end up back in the front
> matter rather than with the definition. In that case we may want
> to / need to embed the info in the definition somehow. Like
>
> Definition
>
> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means �� devices,
> systems (including web services and integrated products that
> deliver assistive services), yada yada yada.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jessica M. Brodey
> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:56 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
> This revised definition addresses ATIA�s concerns stated yesterday
> during the Subpart A report. We would support adopting this. One
> question � should Note 1 and Note 2 be treated as subsections and
> included in the regulation to give it the same force as the
> definition?
>
> Jessica
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:11 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
> A way to meet the concerns that led to including the term �SERVICE�
> and �IN ACCESSING E&IT�
>
> (without creating the problems and grief that will come from trying
> to change the definition of AT)
>
> might be to keep definition but add notes that would be included
> with the definition .
>
> like this:
>
> Definition
>
> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means�etc etc etc
> (standard definition)
>
> Note 1: Virtual Assistive technology delivered as a web service,
> and integration of different products into a system that provides
> assistive functions to people with disabilities, are two examples
> of things that are included in the term �systems� in this definition.
>
> Note 2: Within this Part, Assistive Technology means Assistive
> technology used in accessing E&IT.
>
>
> Gregg
>
> ------------------------
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> Director - Trace R & D Center
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
>
> DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>
> If Attachement is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>
>
>
>
>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Wed, May 30 2007 4:35 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

I think most cases are demonstrable?

----- Original Message -----
From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 2:12 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions


Again, that sounds great in theory but what do you do when someone
else says, no its not? :)





On May 29, 2007, at 1:53 PM, David Poehlman wrote:

> Assistive technology includes techniques so why would captioning
> and audio
> description not be AT? I think if we describe its functionality
> which will
> remain forever, we don't need a list?
>
> Asistive technology provides the means to access and or interact with
> information technology which permit those who cannot hear, see,
> manipulate...?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
> We need to be stronger than consideration. :) I am not sure how many
> people on the committee use AT but as you all know, our daughter
> does. The practical aspects are a nightmare. There are very few
> places in this country that have appropriate access and it is because
> no one understands what it means. I am happy to provide names and
> numbers of people who have requested this. We need to stop
> exacerbating the problem and come up with a solution that really
> works. :) It is not working at all which is why I am pushing so
> hard. A person with a disability is at the mercy of whoever is in
> charge whether it is a procurement person or an access person. No
> one's life should be at someone else's mercy. It is time for a
> change.:)
>
>
> On May 29, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>
>> Here is what I have drafted as a suggestion for technical
>> assistance per
>> Access Board as related to the revised defintion of AT.
>>
>> Diane
>>
>>
>>
>> Possible Technical Assistance Information for Access Board
>> consideration-
>>
>> Reference AT resource lists such as the federal CAP listing of
>> assistive
>> technology used in accommodations (
>> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm>
>> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm) or the
>> Assistive Technology Act federally funded National Public Website on
>> Assistive Technology ( http://assistivetech.net <http://
>> assistivetech.net/>
>> ). The Access Board could also consider recommending that each
>> agency
>> compile a list of the AT typically used in that agency. If made
>> public,
>> such information could be helpful in understanding the range of
>> items used
>> by federal agencies and could prove helpful to vendors, agencies and
>> consumers.
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>> Schomburg, Paul
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:57 AM
>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>> Cc: Schomburg, Paul
>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>>
>>
>> Folks: Alternatively, could the Access Board recommend that each
>> agency
>> compile its own list of what AT it uses? If this is public
>> information it
>> could be used to compile a government-wide list of AT used by the
>> Federal
>> Government. Reference to each agency's list could be included as
>> part of
>> the market research requirements that each agency is responsible to
>> conduct.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks, Paul
>>
>>
>>
>> Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
>>
>> Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114
>>
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:17 AM
>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>> Cc: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; teitac-subparta-
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> While not an outside list, the Department of Defense's web site for
>> the
>> Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) includes
>> information on
>> lots of AT devices and some pretty good language as to their
>> utility. Could
>> we consider referencing this site as an example of what AT might
>> be, but not
>> limited to, defined as?
>>
>> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm
>> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>
>> 05/29/2007 10:21 AM
>>
>>
>> Please respond to
>> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>
>>
>> To
>>
>> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>
>>
>> cc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Subject
>>
>> Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> An outside list is okay if it is controlling. I think we need to
>> rely on
>> the consumers for this issue. The bottom line is that the current
>> methodology is not working so we need to rethink how to approach
>> this.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Janice
>> On May 29, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Jessica M. Brodey wrote:
>>
>> I think Andrew, Tom, and Gregg all have valid points. First,
>> captioning is
>> a means of providing access through technology, but it is not
>> necessarily
>> assistive technology. Second, creating a list can be dangerous -
>> there is
>> the risk of excluding technologies (which then may not be provided
>> upon
>> request because they are not on the list), a list quickly becomes
>> outdated,
>> and it could potentially stifle innovation. If some people feel
>> that a list
>> is critical, perhaps we can ask the Access Board to publish a non-
>> normative
>> list outside the regulations.
>>
>>
>>
>> Jessica Brodey
>>
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom
>> Brett
>> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 2:56 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>>
>>
>> The concern I would have is that by specifying particular types of
>> assistive
>> technology would be that you will limit future innovation. The
>> government
>> could read that all I need is to provide captions and then new
>> technology
>> comes out that provides seamless ASL
>>
>>
>>
>> Tom Brett
>>
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
>> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 9:43 AM
>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>>
>>
>> The language "such as but not limited to" is critical but it is also
>> critical that the items are listed in alphabetical order so that
>> one item is
>> not more important than another.
>>
>>
>>
>> The reason we need to list is that no one outside maybe a 100
>> people :)
>> understands what assistive technology is.:) In the past few week,
>> I have
>> been asked countless times, "is there a list in the law that I can
>> refer
>> to". When I explain that the language is meant to be tailored to the
>> individual, the person who is supposed to implement the access is
>> exasperated. While this has been in the museum setting, it has
>> also been in
>> the National Park setting. It sounds wonderful in theory but in
>> reality, no
>> one understands generalities. Therefore nothing gets done because
>> no one
>> has time to do the research or if it does get done, the information
>> gathered
>> is based on what vendors want to sell.:)
>>
>>
>>
>> On a personal note, years ago, the Department of Education did not
>> want to
>> provide a service that was clearly needed and required . They told
>> me that
>> they were not required to provide it. When I showed then the
>> service was
>> listed in the legislation with "such as but not limited to"
>> language, the
>> service was provided. :) If this list was not provided, I would
>> have had to
>> sue them. People who have disabilities can make suing people a
>> full-time
>> job. :) This is not a good option. Clarity is.
>>
>>
>>
>> The way the law is set-up now is clearly not working. It is time
>> for a
>> change and the use of the language"such as but not limited to" with
>> examples
>> listed in alphabetical order can be inserted and used as a guide and
>> starting point for appropriate access. We as a group need to
>> remember that
>> the goal here is to not only assist the procurement officers but
>> also the
>> end user who can point to legal language to obtain what they need
>> when there
>> may be an artificial barrier (a boss :) ) who is preventing the
>> person from
>> obtaining the appropriate access they need to have appropriate
>> access.
>>
>>
>>
>> Enjoy the rest of the weekend!
>>
>>
>>
>> Best,
>>
>>
>>
>> Janice
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 25, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Concur.
>>
>>
>>
>> Also we don't want to start listing AT. Where do you stop. Who
>> feels left
>> out. Dangerous way to define.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't agree that equivalents such as audio description or
>> captioning are
>> assistive technology. An argument could be made that a caption
>> decoder is
>> AT, but not the captions.
>>
>> AWK
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:09 PM
>> To: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC
>> Subpart A
>> Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>> I have added my additions below in red. Please note, my
>> suggestions are in
>> alphabetical order. :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 25, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> The following is what I have drafted based on the feedback at the
>> meeting.
>> New language is in CAPS.
>>
>> Diane
>>
>>
>>
>> Assistive Technology means any item, piece of equipment, or system,
>> whether
>> acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is commonly
>> used to
>> increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of
>> individuals with
>> disabilities. AS USED IN THIS PART, THE TERM INCLUDES TRADITIONAL
>> ASSISTIVE
>> TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ALONG WITH VIRTUAL ASSISTIVE
>> TECHNOLOGY
>> DELIVERED AS A WEB SERVICE AND INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTS INTO A
>> SYSTEM THAT
>> PROVIDES ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS WITH
>> DISABILITIES TO ACCESS ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY such
>> as but not
>> limited to assistive listening devices, audio description,
>> captioning.
>>
>>
>>
>> Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
>> Missouri Assistive Technology
>> 816/350-5280 (direct voice)
>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> www.at.mo.gov
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
>> Vanderheiden
>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:22 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>> Generally notes that are immediately adjacent a definition in a
>> standard
>> cannot change the meaning in the standard but can explain what it
>> already
>> says. So they don't have the same effect as the definition - but
>> since they
>> are explaining what it says - the definition would convey their
>> weight.
>> However - for the regulations it may be that any notes would end up
>> back in
>> the front matter rather than with the definition. In that case we
>> may want
>> to / need to embed the info in the definition somehow. Like
>>
>> Definition
>>
>> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means ...... devices,
>> systems
>> (including web services and integrated products that deliver
>> assistive
>> services), yada yada yada.
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>> Jessica M.
>> Brodey
>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:56 AM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>> This revised definition addresses ATIA's concerns stated yesterday
>> during
>> the Subpart A report. We would support adopting this. One
>> question -
>> should Note 1 and Note 2 be treated as subsections and included in
>> the
>> regulation to give it the same force as the definition?
>>
>> Jessica
>>
>>
>>
>> _____
>>
>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
>> Vanderheiden
>> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:11 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>> A way to meet the concerns that led to including the term "SERVICE"
>> and "IN
>> ACCESSING E&IT"
>>
>> (without creating the problems and grief that will come from
>> trying to
>> change the definition of AT)
>>
>> might be to keep definition but add notes that would be included
>> with the
>> definition .
>>
>> like this:
>>
>> Definition
>>
>> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means...etc etc etc
>> (standard
>> definition)
>>
>> Note 1: Virtual Assistive technology delivered as a web service, and
>> integration of different products into a system that provides
>> assistive
>> functions to people with disabilities, are two examples of things
>> that are
>> included in the term 'systems' in this definition.
>>
>> Note 2: Within this Part, Assistive Technology means Assistive
>> technology
>> used in accessing E&IT.
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>>
>> ------------------------
>>
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>> Director - Trace R & D Center
>> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>> < <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
>>
>> DSS Player at <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b> http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>>
>> If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
>> http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>>
>> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

From: jagbell
Date: Wed, May 30 2007 5:10 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

I must not have been clear. What if the provider says the type of AT
the person requires is not mandated so they don't have to provide it?



On May 30, 2007, at 6:34 AM, David Poehlman wrote:

> I think most cases are demonstrable?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 2:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
> Again, that sounds great in theory but what do you do when someone
> else says, no its not? :)
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 29, 2007, at 1:53 PM, David Poehlman wrote:
>
>> Assistive technology includes techniques so why would captioning
>> and audio
>> description not be AT? I think if we describe its functionality
>> which will
>> remain forever, we don't need a list?
>>
>> Asistive technology provides the means to access and or interact with
>> information technology which permit those who cannot hear, see,
>> manipulate...?
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:38 PM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>>
>> We need to be stronger than consideration. :) I am not sure how many
>> people on the committee use AT but as you all know, our daughter
>> does. The practical aspects are a nightmare. There are very few
>> places in this country that have appropriate access and it is because
>> no one understands what it means. I am happy to provide names and
>> numbers of people who have requested this. We need to stop
>> exacerbating the problem and come up with a solution that really
>> works. :) It is not working at all which is why I am pushing so
>> hard. A person with a disability is at the mercy of whoever is in
>> charge whether it is a procurement person or an access person. No
>> one's life should be at someone else's mercy. It is time for a
>> change.:)
>>
>>
>> On May 29, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>>
>>> Here is what I have drafted as a suggestion for technical
>>> assistance per
>>> Access Board as related to the revised defintion of AT.
>>>
>>> Diane
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Possible Technical Assistance Information for Access Board
>>> consideration-
>>>
>>> Reference AT resource lists such as the federal CAP listing of
>>> assistive
>>> technology used in accommodations (
>>> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm>
>>> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm) or the
>>> Assistive Technology Act federally funded National Public Website on
>>> Assistive Technology ( http://assistivetech.net <http://
>>> assistivetech.net/>
>>> ). The Access Board could also consider recommending that each
>>> agency
>>> compile a list of the AT typically used in that agency. If made
>>> public,
>>> such information could be helpful in understanding the range of
>>> items used
>>> by federal agencies and could prove helpful to vendors, agencies and
>>> consumers.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>>> Schomburg, Paul
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:57 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Cc: Schomburg, Paul
>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Folks: Alternatively, could the Access Board recommend that each
>>> agency
>>> compile its own list of what AT it uses? If this is public
>>> information it
>>> could be used to compile a government-wide list of AT used by the
>>> Federal
>>> Government. Reference to each agency's list could be included as
>>> part of
>>> the market research requirements that each agency is responsible to
>>> conduct.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
>>>
>>> Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:17 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Cc: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; teitac-subparta-
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While not an outside list, the Department of Defense's web site for
>>> the
>>> Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) includes
>>> information on
>>> lots of AT devices and some pretty good language as to their
>>> utility. Could
>>> we consider referencing this site as an example of what AT might
>>> be, but not
>>> limited to, defined as?
>>>
>>> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm
>>> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>
>>> 05/29/2007 10:21 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> Please respond to
>>> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>
>>>
>>> To
>>>
>>> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>
>>>
>>> cc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Subject
>>>
>>> Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> An outside list is okay if it is controlling. I think we need to
>>> rely on
>>> the consumers for this issue. The bottom line is that the current
>>> methodology is not working so we need to rethink how to approach
>>> this.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Janice
>>> On May 29, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Jessica M. Brodey wrote:
>>>
>>> I think Andrew, Tom, and Gregg all have valid points. First,
>>> captioning is
>>> a means of providing access through technology, but it is not
>>> necessarily
>>> assistive technology. Second, creating a list can be dangerous -
>>> there is
>>> the risk of excluding technologies (which then may not be provided
>>> upon
>>> request because they are not on the list), a list quickly becomes
>>> outdated,
>>> and it could potentially stifle innovation. If some people feel
>>> that a list
>>> is critical, perhaps we can ask the Access Board to publish a non-
>>> normative
>>> list outside the regulations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jessica Brodey
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom
>>> Brett
>>> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 2:56 PM
>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The concern I would have is that by specifying particular types of
>>> assistive
>>> technology would be that you will limit future innovation. The
>>> government
>>> could read that all I need is to provide captions and then new
>>> technology
>>> comes out that provides seamless ASL
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom Brett
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
>>> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 9:43 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The language "such as but not limited to" is critical but it is also
>>> critical that the items are listed in alphabetical order so that
>>> one item is
>>> not more important than another.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The reason we need to list is that no one outside maybe a 100
>>> people :)
>>> understands what assistive technology is.:) In the past few week,
>>> I have
>>> been asked countless times, "is there a list in the law that I can
>>> refer
>>> to". When I explain that the language is meant to be tailored to
>>> the
>>> individual, the person who is supposed to implement the access is
>>> exasperated. While this has been in the museum setting, it has
>>> also been in
>>> the National Park setting. It sounds wonderful in theory but in
>>> reality, no
>>> one understands generalities. Therefore nothing gets done because
>>> no one
>>> has time to do the research or if it does get done, the information
>>> gathered
>>> is based on what vendors want to sell.:)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On a personal note, years ago, the Department of Education did not
>>> want to
>>> provide a service that was clearly needed and required . They told
>>> me that
>>> they were not required to provide it. When I showed then the
>>> service was
>>> listed in the legislation with "such as but not limited to"
>>> language, the
>>> service was provided. :) If this list was not provided, I would
>>> have had to
>>> sue them. People who have disabilities can make suing people a
>>> full-time
>>> job. :) This is not a good option. Clarity is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The way the law is set-up now is clearly not working. It is time
>>> for a
>>> change and the use of the language"such as but not limited to" with
>>> examples
>>> listed in alphabetical order can be inserted and used as a guide and
>>> starting point for appropriate access. We as a group need to
>>> remember that
>>> the goal here is to not only assist the procurement officers but
>>> also the
>>> end user who can point to legal language to obtain what they need
>>> when there
>>> may be an artificial barrier (a boss :) ) who is preventing the
>>> person from
>>> obtaining the appropriate access they need to have appropriate
>>> access.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Enjoy the rest of the weekend!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Janice
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 25, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Concur.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also we don't want to start listing AT. Where do you stop. Who
>>> feels left
>>> out. Dangerous way to define.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>> -- ------------------------------
>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't agree that equivalents such as audio description or
>>> captioning are
>>> assistive technology. An argument could be made that a caption
>>> decoder is
>>> AT, but not the captions.
>>>
>>> AWK
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
>>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:09 PM
>>> To: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC
>>> Subpart A
>>> Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>> I have added my additions below in red. Please note, my
>>> suggestions are in
>>> alphabetical order. :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 25, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The following is what I have drafted based on the feedback at the
>>> meeting.
>>> New language is in CAPS.
>>>
>>> Diane
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Assistive Technology means any item, piece of equipment, or system,
>>> whether
>>> acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is commonly
>>> used to
>>> increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of
>>> individuals with
>>> disabilities. AS USED IN THIS PART, THE TERM INCLUDES TRADITIONAL
>>> ASSISTIVE
>>> TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ALONG WITH VIRTUAL ASSISTIVE
>>> TECHNOLOGY
>>> DELIVERED AS A WEB SERVICE AND INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTS INTO A
>>> SYSTEM THAT
>>> PROVIDES ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS WITH
>>> DISABILITIES TO ACCESS ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY such
>>> as but not
>>> limited to assistive listening devices, audio description,
>>> captioning.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
>>> Missouri Assistive Technology
>>> 816/350-5280 (direct voice)
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> www.at.mo.gov
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
>>> Vanderheiden
>>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:22 PM
>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>> Generally notes that are immediately adjacent a definition in a
>>> standard
>>> cannot change the meaning in the standard but can explain what it
>>> already
>>> says. So they don't have the same effect as the definition - but
>>> since they
>>> are explaining what it says - the definition would convey their
>>> weight.
>>> However - for the regulations it may be that any notes would end up
>>> back in
>>> the front matter rather than with the definition. In that case we
>>> may want
>>> to / need to embed the info in the definition somehow. Like
>>>
>>> Definition
>>>
>>> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means ...... devices,
>>> systems
>>> (including web services and integrated products that deliver
>>> assistive
>>> services), yada yada yada.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>> -- ------------------------------
>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>> Jessica M.
>>> Brodey
>>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:56 AM
>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>> This revised definition addresses ATIA's concerns stated yesterday
>>> during
>>> the Subpart A report. We would support adopting this. One
>>> question -
>>> should Note 1 and Note 2 be treated as subsections and included in
>>> the
>>> regulation to give it the same force as the definition?
>>>
>>> Jessica
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
>>> Vanderheiden
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:11 PM
>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>> A way to meet the concerns that led to including the term "SERVICE"
>>> and "IN
>>> ACCESSING E&IT"
>>>
>>> (without creating the problems and grief that will come from
>>> trying to
>>> change the definition of AT)
>>>
>>> might be to keep definition but add notes that would be included
>>> with the
>>> definition .
>>>
>>> like this:
>>>
>>> Definition
>>>
>>> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means...etc etc etc
>>> (standard
>>> definition)
>>>
>>> Note 1: Virtual Assistive technology delivered as a web service, and
>>> integration of different products into a system that provides
>>> assistive
>>> functions to people with disabilities, are two examples of things
>>> that are
>>> included in the term 'systems' in this definition.
>>>
>>> Note 2: Within this Part, Assistive Technology means Assistive
>>> technology
>>> used in accessing E&IT.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>>
>>> ------------------------
>>>
>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>>> Director - Trace R & D Center
>>> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>>> < <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
>>>
>>> DSS Player at <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b> http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>>>
>>> If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
>>> http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>>>
>>> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

From: Tom Brett
Date: Wed, May 30 2007 5:25 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

If there is AT that is available that provides comparable access I would say
that the provider is being reasonable and that is what is required under ADA
and 504.

Can you provide an example of the type of AT.

Tom Brett


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:10 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

I must not have been clear. What if the provider says the type of AT
the person requires is not mandated so they don't have to provide it?



On May 30, 2007, at 6:34 AM, David Poehlman wrote:

> I think most cases are demonstrable?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 2:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
> Again, that sounds great in theory but what do you do when someone
> else says, no its not? :)
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 29, 2007, at 1:53 PM, David Poehlman wrote:
>
>> Assistive technology includes techniques so why would captioning
>> and audio
>> description not be AT? I think if we describe its functionality
>> which will
>> remain forever, we don't need a list?
>>
>> Asistive technology provides the means to access and or interact with
>> information technology which permit those who cannot hear, see,
>> manipulate...?
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:38 PM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>>
>> We need to be stronger than consideration. :) I am not sure how many
>> people on the committee use AT but as you all know, our daughter
>> does. The practical aspects are a nightmare. There are very few
>> places in this country that have appropriate access and it is because
>> no one understands what it means. I am happy to provide names and
>> numbers of people who have requested this. We need to stop
>> exacerbating the problem and come up with a solution that really
>> works. :) It is not working at all which is why I am pushing so
>> hard. A person with a disability is at the mercy of whoever is in
>> charge whether it is a procurement person or an access person. No
>> one's life should be at someone else's mercy. It is time for a
>> change.:)
>>
>>
>> On May 29, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>>
>>> Here is what I have drafted as a suggestion for technical
>>> assistance per
>>> Access Board as related to the revised defintion of AT.
>>>
>>> Diane
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Possible Technical Assistance Information for Access Board
>>> consideration-
>>>
>>> Reference AT resource lists such as the federal CAP listing of
>>> assistive
>>> technology used in accommodations (
>>> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm>
>>> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm) or the
>>> Assistive Technology Act federally funded National Public Website on
>>> Assistive Technology ( http://assistivetech.net <http://
>>> assistivetech.net/>
>>> ). The Access Board could also consider recommending that each
>>> agency
>>> compile a list of the AT typically used in that agency. If made
>>> public,
>>> such information could be helpful in understanding the range of
>>> items used
>>> by federal agencies and could prove helpful to vendors, agencies and
>>> consumers.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>>> Schomburg, Paul
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:57 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Cc: Schomburg, Paul
>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Folks: Alternatively, could the Access Board recommend that each
>>> agency
>>> compile its own list of what AT it uses? If this is public
>>> information it
>>> could be used to compile a government-wide list of AT used by the
>>> Federal
>>> Government. Reference to each agency's list could be included as
>>> part of
>>> the market research requirements that each agency is responsible to
>>> conduct.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
>>>
>>> Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:17 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Cc: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; teitac-subparta-
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While not an outside list, the Department of Defense's web site for
>>> the
>>> Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) includes
>>> information on
>>> lots of AT devices and some pretty good language as to their
>>> utility. Could
>>> we consider referencing this site as an example of what AT might
>>> be, but not
>>> limited to, defined as?
>>>
>>> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm
>>> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>
>>> 05/29/2007 10:21 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> Please respond to
>>> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>
>>>
>>> To
>>>
>>> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>
>>>
>>> cc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Subject
>>>
>>> Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> An outside list is okay if it is controlling. I think we need to
>>> rely on
>>> the consumers for this issue. The bottom line is that the current
>>> methodology is not working so we need to rethink how to approach
>>> this.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Janice
>>> On May 29, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Jessica M. Brodey wrote:
>>>
>>> I think Andrew, Tom, and Gregg all have valid points. First,
>>> captioning is
>>> a means of providing access through technology, but it is not
>>> necessarily
>>> assistive technology. Second, creating a list can be dangerous -
>>> there is
>>> the risk of excluding technologies (which then may not be provided
>>> upon
>>> request because they are not on the list), a list quickly becomes
>>> outdated,
>>> and it could potentially stifle innovation. If some people feel
>>> that a list
>>> is critical, perhaps we can ask the Access Board to publish a non-
>>> normative
>>> list outside the regulations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jessica Brodey
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom
>>> Brett
>>> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 2:56 PM
>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The concern I would have is that by specifying particular types of
>>> assistive
>>> technology would be that you will limit future innovation. The
>>> government
>>> could read that all I need is to provide captions and then new
>>> technology
>>> comes out that provides seamless ASL
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom Brett
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
>>> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 9:43 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The language "such as but not limited to" is critical but it is also
>>> critical that the items are listed in alphabetical order so that
>>> one item is
>>> not more important than another.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The reason we need to list is that no one outside maybe a 100
>>> people :)
>>> understands what assistive technology is.:) In the past few week,
>>> I have
>>> been asked countless times, "is there a list in the law that I can
>>> refer
>>> to". When I explain that the language is meant to be tailored to
>>> the
>>> individual, the person who is supposed to implement the access is
>>> exasperated. While this has been in the museum setting, it has
>>> also been in
>>> the National Park setting. It sounds wonderful in theory but in
>>> reality, no
>>> one understands generalities. Therefore nothing gets done because
>>> no one
>>> has time to do the research or if it does get done, the information
>>> gathered
>>> is based on what vendors want to sell.:)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On a personal note, years ago, the Department of Education did not
>>> want to
>>> provide a service that was clearly needed and required . They told
>>> me that
>>> they were not required to provide it. When I showed then the
>>> service was
>>> listed in the legislation with "such as but not limited to"
>>> language, the
>>> service was provided. :) If this list was not provided, I would
>>> have had to
>>> sue them. People who have disabilities can make suing people a
>>> full-time
>>> job. :) This is not a good option. Clarity is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The way the law is set-up now is clearly not working. It is time
>>> for a
>>> change and the use of the language"such as but not limited to" with
>>> examples
>>> listed in alphabetical order can be inserted and used as a guide and
>>> starting point for appropriate access. We as a group need to
>>> remember that
>>> the goal here is to not only assist the procurement officers but
>>> also the
>>> end user who can point to legal language to obtain what they need
>>> when there
>>> may be an artificial barrier (a boss :) ) who is preventing the
>>> person from
>>> obtaining the appropriate access they need to have appropriate
>>> access.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Enjoy the rest of the weekend!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Janice
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 25, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Concur.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also we don't want to start listing AT. Where do you stop. Who
>>> feels left
>>> out. Dangerous way to define.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>> -- ------------------------------
>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't agree that equivalents such as audio description or
>>> captioning are
>>> assistive technology. An argument could be made that a caption
>>> decoder is
>>> AT, but not the captions.
>>>
>>> AWK
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
>>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:09 PM
>>> To: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC
>>> Subpart A
>>> Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>> I have added my additions below in red. Please note, my
>>> suggestions are in
>>> alphabetical order. :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 25, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The following is what I have drafted based on the feedback at the
>>> meeting.
>>> New language is in CAPS.
>>>
>>> Diane
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Assistive Technology means any item, piece of equipment, or system,
>>> whether
>>> acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is commonly
>>> used to
>>> increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of
>>> individuals with
>>> disabilities. AS USED IN THIS PART, THE TERM INCLUDES TRADITIONAL
>>> ASSISTIVE
>>> TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ALONG WITH VIRTUAL ASSISTIVE
>>> TECHNOLOGY
>>> DELIVERED AS A WEB SERVICE AND INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTS INTO A
>>> SYSTEM THAT
>>> PROVIDES ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS WITH
>>> DISABILITIES TO ACCESS ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY such
>>> as but not
>>> limited to assistive listening devices, audio description,
>>> captioning.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
>>> Missouri Assistive Technology
>>> 816/350-5280 (direct voice)
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> www.at.mo.gov
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
>>> Vanderheiden
>>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:22 PM
>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>> Generally notes that are immediately adjacent a definition in a
>>> standard
>>> cannot change the meaning in the standard but can explain what it
>>> already
>>> says. So they don't have the same effect as the definition - but
>>> since they
>>> are explaining what it says - the definition would convey their
>>> weight.
>>> However - for the regulations it may be that any notes would end up
>>> back in
>>> the front matter rather than with the definition. In that case we
>>> may want
>>> to / need to embed the info in the definition somehow. Like
>>>
>>> Definition
>>>
>>> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means ...... devices,
>>> systems
>>> (including web services and integrated products that deliver
>>> assistive
>>> services), yada yada yada.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>> -- ------------------------------
>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>> Jessica M.
>>> Brodey
>>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:56 AM
>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>> This revised definition addresses ATIA's concerns stated yesterday
>>> during
>>> the Subpart A report. We would support adopting this. One
>>> question -
>>> should Note 1 and Note 2 be treated as subsections and included in
>>> the
>>> regulation to give it the same force as the definition?
>>>
>>> Jessica
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
>>> Vanderheiden
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:11 PM
>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>> A way to meet the concerns that led to including the term "SERVICE"
>>> and "IN
>>> ACCESSING E&IT"
>>>
>>> (without creating the problems and grief that will come from
>>> trying to
>>> change the definition of AT)
>>>
>>> might be to keep definition but add notes that would be included
>>> with the
>>> definition .
>>>
>>> like this:
>>>
>>> Definition
>>>
>>> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means...etc etc etc
>>> (standard
>>> definition)
>>>
>>> Note 1: Virtual Assistive technology delivered as a web service, and
>>> integration of different products into a system that provides
>>> assistive
>>> functions to people with disabilities, are two examples of things
>>> that are
>>> included in the term 'systems' in this definition.
>>>
>>> Note 2: Within this Part, Assistive Technology means Assistive
>>> technology
>>> used in accessing E&IT.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>>
>>> ------------------------
>>>
>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>>> Director - Trace R & D Center
>>> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>>> < <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
>>>
>>> DSS Player at <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b> http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>>>
>>> If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
>>> http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>>>
>>> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

From: Deborah Buck
Date: Wed, May 30 2007 6:05 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

I think that the reality is that laws and regulations are not going to be
the panacea to ensure ongoing access AT and accessible E&IT. There are
always going to be people who are resistant due to ignorance or personal
bias. No matter how specific laws and regs are there will be those who will
not do what is required and expected until they are forced. To try and
craft a law that covers all anticipated possibilities is not possible -
especially in the field of AT and E&IT that are constantly evolving. If you
include phrases such as or not limited to and include examples, there are
those that will ignore the fact that they are examples only and take the
position that only those products listed are what should be provided. You're
absolutely right in that the current law needs to be refined - the same
could be said for many laws. However, we have already seen that in cases
where there are examples laid out they have proven to have the effect you
are trying to avoid- they limit access. The list of devices would have to be
very lengthy to give adequate examples for the types of AT that could
spectrum of functional needs. I think that we need to take a holistic view
of this- 508 will not stand alone. The law, standards and ongoing training
and technical assistance are critical to its implementation and success. I
do not support including examples in the standards and instead support the
idea that we make a recommendation that the issue be addressed through
technical guidance, training and support.

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:10 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

I must not have been clear. What if the provider says the type of AT
the person requires is not mandated so they don't have to provide it?



On May 30, 2007, at 6:34 AM, David Poehlman wrote:

> I think most cases are demonstrable?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 2:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
> Again, that sounds great in theory but what do you do when someone
> else says, no its not? :)
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 29, 2007, at 1:53 PM, David Poehlman wrote:
>
>> Assistive technology includes techniques so why would captioning
>> and audio
>> description not be AT? I think if we describe its functionality
>> which will
>> remain forever, we don't need a list?
>>
>> Asistive technology provides the means to access and or interact with
>> information technology which permit those who cannot hear, see,
>> manipulate...?
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:38 PM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>>
>> We need to be stronger than consideration. :) I am not sure how many
>> people on the committee use AT but as you all know, our daughter
>> does. The practical aspects are a nightmare. There are very few
>> places in this country that have appropriate access and it is because
>> no one understands what it means. I am happy to provide names and
>> numbers of people who have requested this. We need to stop
>> exacerbating the problem and come up with a solution that really
>> works. :) It is not working at all which is why I am pushing so
>> hard. A person with a disability is at the mercy of whoever is in
>> charge whether it is a procurement person or an access person. No
>> one's life should be at someone else's mercy. It is time for a
>> change.:)
>>
>>
>> On May 29, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>>
>>> Here is what I have drafted as a suggestion for technical
>>> assistance per
>>> Access Board as related to the revised defintion of AT.
>>>
>>> Diane
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Possible Technical Assistance Information for Access Board
>>> consideration-
>>>
>>> Reference AT resource lists such as the federal CAP listing of
>>> assistive
>>> technology used in accommodations (
>>> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm>
>>> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm) or the
>>> Assistive Technology Act federally funded National Public Website on
>>> Assistive Technology ( http://assistivetech.net <http://
>>> assistivetech.net/>
>>> ). The Access Board could also consider recommending that each
>>> agency
>>> compile a list of the AT typically used in that agency. If made
>>> public,
>>> such information could be helpful in understanding the range of
>>> items used
>>> by federal agencies and could prove helpful to vendors, agencies and
>>> consumers.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>>> Schomburg, Paul
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:57 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Cc: Schomburg, Paul
>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Folks: Alternatively, could the Access Board recommend that each
>>> agency
>>> compile its own list of what AT it uses? If this is public
>>> information it
>>> could be used to compile a government-wide list of AT used by the
>>> Federal
>>> Government. Reference to each agency's list could be included as
>>> part of
>>> the market research requirements that each agency is responsible to
>>> conduct.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
>>>
>>> Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:17 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Cc: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; teitac-subparta-
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While not an outside list, the Department of Defense's web site for
>>> the
>>> Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) includes
>>> information on
>>> lots of AT devices and some pretty good language as to their
>>> utility. Could
>>> we consider referencing this site as an example of what AT might
>>> be, but not
>>> limited to, defined as?
>>>
>>> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm
>>> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>
>>> 05/29/2007 10:21 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> Please respond to
>>> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>
>>>
>>> To
>>>
>>> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>
>>>
>>> cc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Subject
>>>
>>> Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> An outside list is okay if it is controlling. I think we need to
>>> rely on
>>> the consumers for this issue. The bottom line is that the current
>>> methodology is not working so we need to rethink how to approach
>>> this.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Janice
>>> On May 29, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Jessica M. Brodey wrote:
>>>
>>> I think Andrew, Tom, and Gregg all have valid points. First,
>>> captioning is
>>> a means of providing access through technology, but it is not
>>> necessarily
>>> assistive technology. Second, creating a list can be dangerous -
>>> there is
>>> the risk of excluding technologies (which then may not be provided
>>> upon
>>> request because they are not on the list), a list quickly becomes
>>> outdated,
>>> and it could potentially stifle innovation. If some people feel
>>> that a list
>>> is critical, perhaps we can ask the Access Board to publish a non-
>>> normative
>>> list outside the regulations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jessica Brodey
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom
>>> Brett
>>> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 2:56 PM
>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The concern I would have is that by specifying particular types of
>>> assistive
>>> technology would be that you will limit future innovation. The
>>> government
>>> could read that all I need is to provide captions and then new
>>> technology
>>> comes out that provides seamless ASL
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom Brett
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
>>> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 9:43 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The language "such as but not limited to" is critical but it is also
>>> critical that the items are listed in alphabetical order so that
>>> one item is
>>> not more important than another.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The reason we need to list is that no one outside maybe a 100
>>> people :)
>>> understands what assistive technology is.:) In the past few week,
>>> I have
>>> been asked countless times, "is there a list in the law that I can
>>> refer
>>> to". When I explain that the language is meant to be tailored to
>>> the
>>> individual, the person who is supposed to implement the access is
>>> exasperated. While this has been in the museum setting, it has
>>> also been in
>>> the National Park setting. It sounds wonderful in theory but in
>>> reality, no
>>> one understands generalities. Therefore nothing gets done because
>>> no one
>>> has time to do the research or if it does get done, the information
>>> gathered
>>> is based on what vendors want to sell.:)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On a personal note, years ago, the Department of Education did not
>>> want to
>>> provide a service that was clearly needed and required . They told
>>> me that
>>> they were not required to provide it. When I showed then the
>>> service was
>>> listed in the legislation with "such as but not limited to"
>>> language, the
>>> service was provided. :) If this list was not provided, I would
>>> have had to
>>> sue them. People who have disabilities can make suing people a
>>> full-time
>>> job. :) This is not a good option. Clarity is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The way the law is set-up now is clearly not working. It is time
>>> for a
>>> change and the use of the language"such as but not limited to" with
>>> examples
>>> listed in alphabetical order can be inserted and used as a guide and
>>> starting point for appropriate access. We as a group need to
>>> remember that
>>> the goal here is to not only assist the procurement officers but
>>> also the
>>> end user who can point to legal language to obtain what they need
>>> when there
>>> may be an artificial barrier (a boss :) ) who is preventing the
>>> person from
>>> obtaining the appropriate access they need to have appropriate
>>> access.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Enjoy the rest of the weekend!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Janice
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 25, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Concur.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also we don't want to start listing AT. Where do you stop. Who
>>> feels left
>>> out. Dangerous way to define.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>> -- ------------------------------
>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't agree that equivalents such as audio description or
>>> captioning are
>>> assistive technology. An argument could be made that a caption
>>> decoder is
>>> AT, but not the captions.
>>>
>>> AWK
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
>>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:09 PM
>>> To: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC
>>> Subpart A
>>> Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>> I have added my additions below in red. Please note, my
>>> suggestions are in
>>> alphabetical order. :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 25, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The following is what I have drafted based on the feedback at the
>>> meeting.
>>> New language is in CAPS.
>>>
>>> Diane
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Assistive Technology means any item, piece of equipment, or system,
>>> whether
>>> acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is commonly
>>> used to
>>> increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of
>>> individuals with
>>> disabilities. AS USED IN THIS PART, THE TERM INCLUDES TRADITIONAL
>>> ASSISTIVE
>>> TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ALONG WITH VIRTUAL ASSISTIVE
>>> TECHNOLOGY
>>> DELIVERED AS A WEB SERVICE AND INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTS INTO A
>>> SYSTEM THAT
>>> PROVIDES ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS WITH
>>> DISABILITIES TO ACCESS ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY such
>>> as but not
>>> limited to assistive listening devices, audio description,
>>> captioning.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
>>> Missouri Assistive Technology
>>> 816/350-5280 (direct voice)
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> www.at.mo.gov
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
>>> Vanderheiden
>>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:22 PM
>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>> Generally notes that are immediately adjacent a definition in a
>>> standard
>>> cannot change the meaning in the standard but can explain what it
>>> already
>>> says. So they don't have the same effect as the definition - but
>>> since they
>>> are explaining what it says - the definition would convey their
>>> weight.
>>> However - for the regulations it may be that any notes would end up
>>> back in
>>> the front matter rather than with the definition. In that case we
>>> may want
>>> to / need to embed the info in the definition somehow. Like
>>>
>>> Definition
>>>
>>> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means ...... devices,
>>> systems
>>> (including web services and integrated products that deliver
>>> assistive
>>> services), yada yada yada.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>> -- ------------------------------
>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>> Jessica M.
>>> Brodey
>>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:56 AM
>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>> This revised definition addresses ATIA's concerns stated yesterday
>>> during
>>> the Subpart A report. We would support adopting this. One
>>> question -
>>> should Note 1 and Note 2 be treated as subsections and included in
>>> the
>>> regulation to give it the same force as the definition?
>>>
>>> Jessica
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
>>> Vanderheiden
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:11 PM
>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>> A way to meet the concerns that led to including the term "SERVICE"
>>> and "IN
>>> ACCESSING E&IT"
>>>
>>> (without creating the problems and grief that will come from
>>> trying to
>>> change the definition of AT)
>>>
>>> might be to keep definition but add notes that would be included
>>> with the
>>> definition .
>>>
>>> like this:
>>>
>>> Definition
>>>
>>> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means...etc etc etc
>>> (standard
>>> definition)
>>>
>>> Note 1: Virtual Assistive technology delivered as a web service, and
>>> integration of different products into a system that provides
>>> assistive
>>> functions to people with disabilities, are two examples of things
>>> that are
>>> included in the term 'systems' in this definition.
>>>
>>> Note 2: Within this Part, Assistive Technology means Assistive
>>> technology
>>> used in accessing E&IT.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>>
>>> ------------------------
>>>
>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>>> Director - Trace R & D Center
>>> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>>> < <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
>>>
>>> DSS Player at <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b> http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>>>
>>> If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
>>> http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>>>
>>> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

From: jagbell
Date: Wed, May 30 2007 6:25 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

It depends what your definition of comparable access is. For
example, at the National Parks, (Sorry but is is my best frame of
reference.) a Park offers captioning on the video and does not also
offer induction loops. In their mind, it is accessible but to
someone who has residual hearing, it is not the same. (If it were,
we would still have silent movies.) What happens is a standstill.

Another example, The NPS says okay instead of offering an induction
loop we will offer a portable DVD player with the sound. The fact
that it is impossible to synch the DVD player to the video appears to
be irrelevant to The Park. Is this comparable access? These are
both real examples of what is transpiring at National Parks. If
there was a list, this would be completely avoidable. The problem is
that I am forced to rely on people whose best interest is not
appropriate access or who are unable to understand what appropriate
access is. :)

There needs to be a way to have a place that I can point to that
says, it says right here what appropriate access is and you are not
providing it. :)

Janice




On May 30, 2007, at 7:21 AM, Tom Brett wrote:

>
>
> If there is AT that is available that provides comparable access I
> would say
> that the provider is being reasonable and that is what is required
> under ADA
> and 504.
>
> Can you provide an example of the type of AT.
>
> Tom Brett
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:10 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
> I must not have been clear. What if the provider says the type of AT
> the person requires is not mandated so they don't have to provide it?
>
>
>
> On May 30, 2007, at 6:34 AM, David Poehlman wrote:
>
>> I think most cases are demonstrable?
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 2:12 PM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>>
>> Again, that sounds great in theory but what do you do when someone
>> else says, no its not? :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 29, 2007, at 1:53 PM, David Poehlman wrote:
>>
>>> Assistive technology includes techniques so why would captioning
>>> and audio
>>> description not be AT? I think if we describe its functionality
>>> which will
>>> remain forever, we don't need a list?
>>>
>>> Asistive technology provides the means to access and or interact
>>> with
>>> information technology which permit those who cannot hear, see,
>>> manipulate...?
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:38 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>> We need to be stronger than consideration. :) I am not sure how
>>> many
>>> people on the committee use AT but as you all know, our daughter
>>> does. The practical aspects are a nightmare. There are very few
>>> places in this country that have appropriate access and it is
>>> because
>>> no one understands what it means. I am happy to provide names and
>>> numbers of people who have requested this. We need to stop
>>> exacerbating the problem and come up with a solution that really
>>> works. :) It is not working at all which is why I am pushing so
>>> hard. A person with a disability is at the mercy of whoever is in
>>> charge whether it is a procurement person or an access person. No
>>> one's life should be at someone else's mercy. It is time for a
>>> change.:)
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 29, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is what I have drafted as a suggestion for technical
>>>> assistance per
>>>> Access Board as related to the revised defintion of AT.
>>>>
>>>> Diane
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Possible Technical Assistance Information for Access Board
>>>> consideration-
>>>>
>>>> Reference AT resource lists such as the federal CAP listing of
>>>> assistive
>>>> technology used in accommodations (
>>>> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm>
>>>> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm) or the
>>>> Assistive Technology Act federally funded National Public
>>>> Website on
>>>> Assistive Technology ( http://assistivetech.net <http://
>>>> assistivetech.net/>
>>>> ). The Access Board could also consider recommending that each
>>>> agency
>>>> compile a list of the AT typically used in that agency. If made
>>>> public,
>>>> such information could be helpful in understanding the range of
>>>> items used
>>>> by federal agencies and could prove helpful to vendors, agencies
>>>> and
>>>> consumers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>>>> Schomburg, Paul
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:57 AM
>>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>>> Cc: Schomburg, Paul
>>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Folks: Alternatively, could the Access Board recommend that each
>>>> agency
>>>> compile its own list of what AT it uses? If this is public
>>>> information it
>>>> could be used to compile a government-wide list of AT used by the
>>>> Federal
>>>> Government. Reference to each agency's list could be included as
>>>> part of
>>>> the market research requirements that each agency is responsible to
>>>> conduct.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
>>>>
>>>> Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _____
>>>>
>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:17 AM
>>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>>> Cc: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; teitac-subparta-
>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While not an outside list, the Department of Defense's web site for
>>>> the
>>>> Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) includes
>>>> information on
>>>> lots of AT devices and some pretty good language as to their
>>>> utility. Could
>>>> we consider referencing this site as an example of what AT might
>>>> be, but not
>>>> limited to, defined as?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm
>>>> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>
>>>> 05/29/2007 10:21 AM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please respond to
>>>> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To
>>>>
>>>> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Subject
>>>>
>>>> Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An outside list is okay if it is controlling. I think we need to
>>>> rely on
>>>> the consumers for this issue. The bottom line is that the current
>>>> methodology is not working so we need to rethink how to approach
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Janice
>>>> On May 29, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Jessica M. Brodey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think Andrew, Tom, and Gregg all have valid points. First,
>>>> captioning is
>>>> a means of providing access through technology, but it is not
>>>> necessarily
>>>> assistive technology. Second, creating a list can be dangerous -
>>>> there is
>>>> the risk of excluding technologies (which then may not be provided
>>>> upon
>>>> request because they are not on the list), a list quickly becomes
>>>> outdated,
>>>> and it could potentially stifle innovation. If some people feel
>>>> that a list
>>>> is critical, perhaps we can ask the Access Board to publish a non-
>>>> normative
>>>> list outside the regulations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jessica Brodey
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _____
>>>>
>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom
>>>> Brett
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 2:56 PM
>>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The concern I would have is that by specifying particular types of
>>>> assistive
>>>> technology would be that you will limit future innovation. The
>>>> government
>>>> could read that all I need is to provide captions and then new
>>>> technology
>>>> comes out that provides seamless ASL
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tom Brett
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _____
>>>>
>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>>> jagbell
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 9:43 AM
>>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The language "such as but not limited to" is critical but it is
>>>> also
>>>> critical that the items are listed in alphabetical order so that
>>>> one item is
>>>> not more important than another.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The reason we need to list is that no one outside maybe a 100
>>>> people :)
>>>> understands what assistive technology is.:) In the past few week,
>>>> I have
>>>> been asked countless times, "is there a list in the law that I can
>>>> refer
>>>> to". When I explain that the language is meant to be tailored to
>>>> the
>>>> individual, the person who is supposed to implement the access is
>>>> exasperated. While this has been in the museum setting, it has
>>>> also been in
>>>> the National Park setting. It sounds wonderful in theory but in
>>>> reality, no
>>>> one understands generalities. Therefore nothing gets done because
>>>> no one
>>>> has time to do the research or if it does get done, the information
>>>> gathered
>>>> is based on what vendors want to sell.:)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On a personal note, years ago, the Department of Education did not
>>>> want to
>>>> provide a service that was clearly needed and required . They told
>>>> me that
>>>> they were not required to provide it. When I showed then the
>>>> service was
>>>> listed in the legislation with "such as but not limited to"
>>>> language, the
>>>> service was provided. :) If this list was not provided, I would
>>>> have had to
>>>> sue them. People who have disabilities can make suing people a
>>>> full-time
>>>> job. :) This is not a good option. Clarity is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The way the law is set-up now is clearly not working. It is time
>>>> for a
>>>> change and the use of the language"such as but not limited to" with
>>>> examples
>>>> listed in alphabetical order can be inserted and used as a guide
>>>> and
>>>> starting point for appropriate access. We as a group need to
>>>> remember that
>>>> the goal here is to not only assist the procurement officers but
>>>> also the
>>>> end user who can point to legal language to obtain what they need
>>>> when there
>>>> may be an artificial barrier (a boss :) ) who is preventing the
>>>> person from
>>>> obtaining the appropriate access they need to have appropriate
>>>> access.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Enjoy the rest of the weekend!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Janice
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 25, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Concur.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also we don't want to start listing AT. Where do you stop. Who
>>>> feels left
>>>> out. Dangerous way to define.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree that equivalents such as audio description or
>>>> captioning are
>>>> assistive technology. An argument could be made that a caption
>>>> decoder is
>>>> AT, but not the captions.
>>>>
>>>> AWK
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _____
>>>>
>>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>>> jagbell
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:09 PM
>>>> To: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC
>>>> Subpart A
>>>> Subcommittee
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>>
>>>> I have added my additions below in red. Please note, my
>>>> suggestions are in
>>>> alphabetical order. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 25, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The following is what I have drafted based on the feedback at the
>>>> meeting.
>>>> New language is in CAPS.
>>>>
>>>> Diane
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Assistive Technology means any item, piece of equipment, or system,
>>>> whether
>>>> acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is commonly
>>>> used to
>>>> increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of
>>>> individuals with
>>>> disabilities. AS USED IN THIS PART, THE TERM INCLUDES TRADITIONAL
>>>> ASSISTIVE
>>>> TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ALONG WITH VIRTUAL ASSISTIVE
>>>> TECHNOLOGY
>>>> DELIVERED AS A WEB SERVICE AND INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTS INTO A
>>>> SYSTEM THAT
>>>> PROVIDES ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS WITH
>>>> DISABILITIES TO ACCESS ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY such
>>>> as but not
>>>> limited to assistive listening devices, audio description,
>>>> captioning.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
>>>> Missouri Assistive Technology
>>>> 816/350-5280 (direct voice)
>>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> www.at.mo.gov
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
>>>> Vanderheiden
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:22 PM
>>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>>
>>>> Generally notes that are immediately adjacent a definition in a
>>>> standard
>>>> cannot change the meaning in the standard but can explain what it
>>>> already
>>>> says. So they don't have the same effect as the definition - but
>>>> since they
>>>> are explaining what it says - the definition would convey their
>>>> weight.
>>>> However - for the regulations it may be that any notes would end up
>>>> back in
>>>> the front matter rather than with the definition. In that case we
>>>> may want
>>>> to / need to embed the info in the definition somehow. Like
>>>>
>>>> Definition
>>>>
>>>> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means ...... devices,
>>>> systems
>>>> (including web services and integrated products that deliver
>>>> assistive
>>>> services), yada yada yada.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _____
>>>>
>>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>>> Jessica M.
>>>> Brodey
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:56 AM
>>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>>
>>>> This revised definition addresses ATIA's concerns stated yesterday
>>>> during
>>>> the Subpart A report. We would support adopting this. One
>>>> question -
>>>> should Note 1 and Note 2 be treated as subsections and included in
>>>> the
>>>> regulation to give it the same force as the definition?
>>>>
>>>> Jessica
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _____
>>>>
>>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
>>>> Vanderheiden
>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:11 PM
>>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>>
>>>> A way to meet the concerns that led to including the term "SERVICE"
>>>> and "IN
>>>> ACCESSING E&IT"
>>>>
>>>> (without creating the problems and grief that will come from
>>>> trying to
>>>> change the definition of AT)
>>>>
>>>> might be to keep definition but add notes that would be included
>>>> with the
>>>> definition .
>>>>
>>>> like this:
>>>>
>>>> Definition
>>>>
>>>> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means...etc etc etc
>>>> (standard
>>>> definition)
>>>>
>>>> Note 1: Virtual Assistive technology delivered as a web service,
>>>> and
>>>> integration of different products into a system that provides
>>>> assistive
>>>> functions to people with disabilities, are two examples of things
>>>> that are
>>>> included in the term 'systems' in this definition.
>>>>
>>>> Note 2: Within this Part, Assistive Technology means Assistive
>>>> technology
>>>> used in accessing E&IT.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>>>> Director - Trace R & D Center
>>>> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>>>> < <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX
>>>> 608/262-8848
>>>>
>>>> DSS Player at <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b> http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>>>>
>>>> If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
>>>> http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>>>>
>>>> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>

From: Jessica M. Brodey
Date: Wed, May 30 2007 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

ATIA agrees with the position Deborah Buck has set forth. Any examples or
explanations should be included in a document outside of the regulations,
because our experience is that lists of specific AT have the effect of
limiting access. The mentality of "it's not on the list" that we are trying
to address can be quite exclusive if an item does not make it to the list.
It is impossible to create a list of all possible item that may provide
access.

Jessica

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Deborah Buck
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 8:01 AM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

I think that the reality is that laws and regulations are not going to be
the panacea to ensure ongoing access AT and accessible E&IT. There are
always going to be people who are resistant due to ignorance or personal
bias. No matter how specific laws and regs are there will be those who will
not do what is required and expected until they are forced. To try and
craft a law that covers all anticipated possibilities is not possible -
especially in the field of AT and E&IT that are constantly evolving. If you
include phrases such as or not limited to and include examples, there are
those that will ignore the fact that they are examples only and take the
position that only those products listed are what should be provided. You're
absolutely right in that the current law needs to be refined - the same
could be said for many laws. However, we have already seen that in cases
where there are examples laid out they have proven to have the effect you
are trying to avoid- they limit access. The list of devices would have to be
very lengthy to give adequate examples for the types of AT that could
spectrum of functional needs. I think that we need to take a holistic view
of this- 508 will not stand alone. The law, standards and ongoing training
and technical assistance are critical to its implementation and success. I
do not support including examples in the standards and instead support the
idea that we make a recommendation that the issue be addressed through
technical guidance, training and support.

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:10 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

I must not have been clear. What if the provider says the type of AT
the person requires is not mandated so they don't have to provide it?



On May 30, 2007, at 6:34 AM, David Poehlman wrote:

> I think most cases are demonstrable?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 2:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
> Again, that sounds great in theory but what do you do when someone
> else says, no its not? :)
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 29, 2007, at 1:53 PM, David Poehlman wrote:
>
>> Assistive technology includes techniques so why would captioning
>> and audio
>> description not be AT? I think if we describe its functionality
>> which will
>> remain forever, we don't need a list?
>>
>> Asistive technology provides the means to access and or interact with
>> information technology which permit those who cannot hear, see,
>> manipulate...?
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:38 PM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>>
>> We need to be stronger than consideration. :) I am not sure how many
>> people on the committee use AT but as you all know, our daughter
>> does. The practical aspects are a nightmare. There are very few
>> places in this country that have appropriate access and it is because
>> no one understands what it means. I am happy to provide names and
>> numbers of people who have requested this. We need to stop
>> exacerbating the problem and come up with a solution that really
>> works. :) It is not working at all which is why I am pushing so
>> hard. A person with a disability is at the mercy of whoever is in
>> charge whether it is a procurement person or an access person. No
>> one's life should be at someone else's mercy. It is time for a
>> change.:)
>>
>>
>> On May 29, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>>
>>> Here is what I have drafted as a suggestion for technical
>>> assistance per
>>> Access Board as related to the revised defintion of AT.
>>>
>>> Diane
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Possible Technical Assistance Information for Access Board
>>> consideration-
>>>
>>> Reference AT resource lists such as the federal CAP listing of
>>> assistive
>>> technology used in accommodations (
>>> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm>
>>> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm) or the
>>> Assistive Technology Act federally funded National Public Website on
>>> Assistive Technology ( http://assistivetech.net <http://
>>> assistivetech.net/>
>>> ). The Access Board could also consider recommending that each
>>> agency
>>> compile a list of the AT typically used in that agency. If made
>>> public,
>>> such information could be helpful in understanding the range of
>>> items used
>>> by federal agencies and could prove helpful to vendors, agencies and
>>> consumers.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>>> Schomburg, Paul
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:57 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Cc: Schomburg, Paul
>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Folks: Alternatively, could the Access Board recommend that each
>>> agency
>>> compile its own list of what AT it uses? If this is public
>>> information it
>>> could be used to compile a government-wide list of AT used by the
>>> Federal
>>> Government. Reference to each agency's list could be included as
>>> part of
>>> the market research requirements that each agency is responsible to
>>> conduct.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
>>>
>>> Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:17 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Cc: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; teitac-subparta-
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While not an outside list, the Department of Defense's web site for
>>> the
>>> Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) includes
>>> information on
>>> lots of AT devices and some pretty good language as to their
>>> utility. Could
>>> we consider referencing this site as an example of what AT might
>>> be, but not
>>> limited to, defined as?
>>>
>>> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm
>>> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>
>>> 05/29/2007 10:21 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> Please respond to
>>> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>
>>>
>>> To
>>>
>>> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>
>>>
>>> cc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Subject
>>>
>>> Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> An outside list is okay if it is controlling. I think we need to
>>> rely on
>>> the consumers for this issue. The bottom line is that the current
>>> methodology is not working so we need to rethink how to approach
>>> this.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Janice
>>> On May 29, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Jessica M. Brodey wrote:
>>>
>>> I think Andrew, Tom, and Gregg all have valid points. First,
>>> captioning is
>>> a means of providing access through technology, but it is not
>>> necessarily
>>> assistive technology. Second, creating a list can be dangerous -
>>> there is
>>> the risk of excluding technologies (which then may not be provided
>>> upon
>>> request because they are not on the list), a list quickly becomes
>>> outdated,
>>> and it could potentially stifle innovation. If some people feel
>>> that a list
>>> is critical, perhaps we can ask the Access Board to publish a non-
>>> normative
>>> list outside the regulations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jessica Brodey
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom
>>> Brett
>>> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 2:56 PM
>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The concern I would have is that by specifying particular types of
>>> assistive
>>> technology would be that you will limit future innovation. The
>>> government
>>> could read that all I need is to provide captions and then new
>>> technology
>>> comes out that provides seamless ASL
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom Brett
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
>>> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 9:43 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The language "such as but not limited to" is critical but it is also
>>> critical that the items are listed in alphabetical order so that
>>> one item is
>>> not more important than another.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The reason we need to list is that no one outside maybe a 100
>>> people :)
>>> understands what assistive technology is.:) In the past few week,
>>> I have
>>> been asked countless times, "is there a list in the law that I can
>>> refer
>>> to". When I explain that the language is meant to be tailored to
>>> the
>>> individual, the person who is supposed to implement the access is
>>> exasperated. While this has been in the museum setting, it has
>>> also been in
>>> the National Park setting. It sounds wonderful in theory but in
>>> reality, no
>>> one understands generalities. Therefore nothing gets done because
>>> no one
>>> has time to do the research or if it does get done, the information
>>> gathered
>>> is based on what vendors want to sell.:)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On a personal note, years ago, the Department of Education did not
>>> want to
>>> provide a service that was clearly needed and required . They told
>>> me that
>>> they were not required to provide it. When I showed then the
>>> service was
>>> listed in the legislation with "such as but not limited to"
>>> language, the
>>> service was provided. :) If this list was not provided, I would
>>> have had to
>>> sue them. People who have disabilities can make suing people a
>>> full-time
>>> job. :) This is not a good option. Clarity is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The way the law is set-up now is clearly not working. It is time
>>> for a
>>> change and the use of the language"such as but not limited to" with
>>> examples
>>> listed in alphabetical order can be inserted and used as a guide and
>>> starting point for appropriate access. We as a group need to
>>> remember that
>>> the goal here is to not only assist the procurement officers but
>>> also the
>>> end user who can point to legal language to obtain what they need
>>> when there
>>> may be an artificial barrier (a boss :) ) who is preventing the
>>> person from
>>> obtaining the appropriate access they need to have appropriate
>>> access.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Enjoy the rest of the weekend!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Janice
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 25, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Concur.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also we don't want to start listing AT. Where do you stop. Who
>>> feels left
>>> out. Dangerous way to define.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>> -- ------------------------------
>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't agree that equivalents such as audio description or
>>> captioning are
>>> assistive technology. An argument could be made that a caption
>>> decoder is
>>> AT, but not the captions.
>>>
>>> AWK
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
>>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:09 PM
>>> To: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC
>>> Subpart A
>>> Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>> I have added my additions below in red. Please note, my
>>> suggestions are in
>>> alphabetical order. :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 25, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The following is what I have drafted based on the feedback at the
>>> meeting.
>>> New language is in CAPS.
>>>
>>> Diane
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Assistive Technology means any item, piece of equipment, or system,
>>> whether
>>> acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is commonly
>>> used to
>>> increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of
>>> individuals with
>>> disabilities. AS USED IN THIS PART, THE TERM INCLUDES TRADITIONAL
>>> ASSISTIVE
>>> TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ALONG WITH VIRTUAL ASSISTIVE
>>> TECHNOLOGY
>>> DELIVERED AS A WEB SERVICE AND INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTS INTO A
>>> SYSTEM THAT
>>> PROVIDES ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS WITH
>>> DISABILITIES TO ACCESS ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY such
>>> as but not
>>> limited to assistive listening devices, audio description,
>>> captioning.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
>>> Missouri Assistive Technology
>>> 816/350-5280 (direct voice)
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> www.at.mo.gov
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
>>> Vanderheiden
>>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:22 PM
>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>> Generally notes that are immediately adjacent a definition in a
>>> standard
>>> cannot change the meaning in the standard but can explain what it
>>> already
>>> says. So they don't have the same effect as the definition - but
>>> since they
>>> are explaining what it says - the definition would convey their
>>> weight.
>>> However - for the regulations it may be that any notes would end up
>>> back in
>>> the front matter rather than with the definition. In that case we
>>> may want
>>> to / need to embed the info in the definition somehow. Like
>>>
>>> Definition
>>>
>>> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means ...... devices,
>>> systems
>>> (including web services and integrated products that deliver
>>> assistive
>>> services), yada yada yada.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>> -- ------------------------------
>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>> Jessica M.
>>> Brodey
>>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:56 AM
>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>> This revised definition addresses ATIA's concerns stated yesterday
>>> during
>>> the Subpart A report. We would support adopting this. One
>>> question -
>>> should Note 1 and Note 2 be treated as subsections and included in
>>> the
>>> regulation to give it the same force as the definition?
>>>
>>> Jessica
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
>>> Vanderheiden
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:11 PM
>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>> A way to meet the concerns that led to including the term "SERVICE"
>>> and "IN
>>> ACCESSING E&IT"
>>>
>>> (without creating the problems and grief that will come from
>>> trying to
>>> change the definition of AT)
>>>
>>> might be to keep definition but add notes that would be included
>>> with the
>>> definition .
>>>
>>> like this:
>>>
>>> Definition
>>>
>>> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means...etc etc etc
>>> (standard
>>> definition)
>>>
>>> Note 1: Virtual Assistive technology delivered as a web service, and
>>> integration of different products into a system that provides
>>> assistive
>>> functions to people with disabilities, are two examples of things
>>> that are
>>> included in the term 'systems' in this definition.
>>>
>>> Note 2: Within this Part, Assistive Technology means Assistive
>>> technology
>>> used in accessing E&IT.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>>
>>> ------------------------
>>>
>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>>> Director - Trace R & D Center
>>> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>>> < <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
>>>
>>> DSS Player at <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b> http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>>>
>>> If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
>>> http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>>>
>>> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Wed, May 30 2007 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

I guess we just have to fill all the holes.

----- Original Message -----
From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:09 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions


I must not have been clear. What if the provider says the type of AT
the person requires is not mandated so they don't have to provide it?



On May 30, 2007, at 6:34 AM, David Poehlman wrote:

> I think most cases are demonstrable?
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 2:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
>
> Again, that sounds great in theory but what do you do when someone
> else says, no its not? :)
>
>
>
>
>
> On May 29, 2007, at 1:53 PM, David Poehlman wrote:
>
>> Assistive technology includes techniques so why would captioning
>> and audio
>> description not be AT? I think if we describe its functionality
>> which will
>> remain forever, we don't need a list?
>>
>> Asistive technology provides the means to access and or interact with
>> information technology which permit those who cannot hear, see,
>> manipulate...?
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:38 PM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>>
>> We need to be stronger than consideration. :) I am not sure how many
>> people on the committee use AT but as you all know, our daughter
>> does. The practical aspects are a nightmare. There are very few
>> places in this country that have appropriate access and it is because
>> no one understands what it means. I am happy to provide names and
>> numbers of people who have requested this. We need to stop
>> exacerbating the problem and come up with a solution that really
>> works. :) It is not working at all which is why I am pushing so
>> hard. A person with a disability is at the mercy of whoever is in
>> charge whether it is a procurement person or an access person. No
>> one's life should be at someone else's mercy. It is time for a
>> change.:)
>>
>>
>> On May 29, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>>
>>> Here is what I have drafted as a suggestion for technical
>>> assistance per
>>> Access Board as related to the revised defintion of AT.
>>>
>>> Diane
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Possible Technical Assistance Information for Access Board
>>> consideration-
>>>
>>> Reference AT resource lists such as the federal CAP listing of
>>> assistive
>>> technology used in accommodations (
>>> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm>
>>> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm) or the
>>> Assistive Technology Act federally funded National Public Website on
>>> Assistive Technology ( http://assistivetech.net <http://
>>> assistivetech.net/>
>>> ). The Access Board could also consider recommending that each
>>> agency
>>> compile a list of the AT typically used in that agency. If made
>>> public,
>>> such information could be helpful in understanding the range of
>>> items used
>>> by federal agencies and could prove helpful to vendors, agencies and
>>> consumers.
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>>> Schomburg, Paul
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:57 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Cc: Schomburg, Paul
>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Folks: Alternatively, could the Access Board recommend that each
>>> agency
>>> compile its own list of what AT it uses? If this is public
>>> information it
>>> could be used to compile a government-wide list of AT used by the
>>> Federal
>>> Government. Reference to each agency's list could be included as
>>> part of
>>> the market research requirements that each agency is responsible to
>>> conduct.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks, Paul
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
>>>
>>> Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:17 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Cc: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; teitac-subparta-
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> While not an outside list, the Department of Defense's web site for
>>> the
>>> Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) includes
>>> information on
>>> lots of AT devices and some pretty good language as to their
>>> utility. Could
>>> we consider referencing this site as an example of what AT might
>>> be, but not
>>> limited to, defined as?
>>>
>>> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm
>>> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>
>>> 05/29/2007 10:21 AM
>>>
>>>
>>> Please respond to
>>> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>
>>>
>>> To
>>>
>>> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>
>>>
>>> cc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Subject
>>>
>>> Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> An outside list is okay if it is controlling. I think we need to
>>> rely on
>>> the consumers for this issue. The bottom line is that the current
>>> methodology is not working so we need to rethink how to approach
>>> this.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> Janice
>>> On May 29, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Jessica M. Brodey wrote:
>>>
>>> I think Andrew, Tom, and Gregg all have valid points. First,
>>> captioning is
>>> a means of providing access through technology, but it is not
>>> necessarily
>>> assistive technology. Second, creating a list can be dangerous -
>>> there is
>>> the risk of excluding technologies (which then may not be provided
>>> upon
>>> request because they are not on the list), a list quickly becomes
>>> outdated,
>>> and it could potentially stifle innovation. If some people feel
>>> that a list
>>> is critical, perhaps we can ask the Access Board to publish a non-
>>> normative
>>> list outside the regulations.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Jessica Brodey
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom
>>> Brett
>>> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 2:56 PM
>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The concern I would have is that by specifying particular types of
>>> assistive
>>> technology would be that you will limit future innovation. The
>>> government
>>> could read that all I need is to provide captions and then new
>>> technology
>>> comes out that provides seamless ASL
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Tom Brett
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
>>> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 9:43 AM
>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The language "such as but not limited to" is critical but it is also
>>> critical that the items are listed in alphabetical order so that
>>> one item is
>>> not more important than another.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The reason we need to list is that no one outside maybe a 100
>>> people :)
>>> understands what assistive technology is.:) In the past few week,
>>> I have
>>> been asked countless times, "is there a list in the law that I can
>>> refer
>>> to". When I explain that the language is meant to be tailored to
>>> the
>>> individual, the person who is supposed to implement the access is
>>> exasperated. While this has been in the museum setting, it has
>>> also been in
>>> the National Park setting. It sounds wonderful in theory but in
>>> reality, no
>>> one understands generalities. Therefore nothing gets done because
>>> no one
>>> has time to do the research or if it does get done, the information
>>> gathered
>>> is based on what vendors want to sell.:)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On a personal note, years ago, the Department of Education did not
>>> want to
>>> provide a service that was clearly needed and required . They told
>>> me that
>>> they were not required to provide it. When I showed then the
>>> service was
>>> listed in the legislation with "such as but not limited to"
>>> language, the
>>> service was provided. :) If this list was not provided, I would
>>> have had to
>>> sue them. People who have disabilities can make suing people a
>>> full-time
>>> job. :) This is not a good option. Clarity is.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The way the law is set-up now is clearly not working. It is time
>>> for a
>>> change and the use of the language"such as but not limited to" with
>>> examples
>>> listed in alphabetical order can be inserted and used as a guide and
>>> starting point for appropriate access. We as a group need to
>>> remember that
>>> the goal here is to not only assist the procurement officers but
>>> also the
>>> end user who can point to legal language to obtain what they need
>>> when there
>>> may be an artificial barrier (a boss :) ) who is preventing the
>>> person from
>>> obtaining the appropriate access they need to have appropriate
>>> access.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Enjoy the rest of the weekend!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Janice
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 25, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Concur.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also we don't want to start listing AT. Where do you stop. Who
>>> feels left
>>> out. Dangerous way to define.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>> -- ------------------------------
>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't agree that equivalents such as audio description or
>>> captioning are
>>> assistive technology. An argument could be made that a caption
>>> decoder is
>>> AT, but not the captions.
>>>
>>> AWK
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
>>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:09 PM
>>> To: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC
>>> Subpart A
>>> Subcommittee
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>> I have added my additions below in red. Please note, my
>>> suggestions are in
>>> alphabetical order. :)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 25, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The following is what I have drafted based on the feedback at the
>>> meeting.
>>> New language is in CAPS.
>>>
>>> Diane
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Assistive Technology means any item, piece of equipment, or system,
>>> whether
>>> acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is commonly
>>> used to
>>> increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of
>>> individuals with
>>> disabilities. AS USED IN THIS PART, THE TERM INCLUDES TRADITIONAL
>>> ASSISTIVE
>>> TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ALONG WITH VIRTUAL ASSISTIVE
>>> TECHNOLOGY
>>> DELIVERED AS A WEB SERVICE AND INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTS INTO A
>>> SYSTEM THAT
>>> PROVIDES ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS WITH
>>> DISABILITIES TO ACCESS ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY such
>>> as but not
>>> limited to assistive listening devices, audio description,
>>> captioning.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
>>> Missouri Assistive Technology
>>> 816/350-5280 (direct voice)
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>> www.at.mo.gov
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
>>> Vanderheiden
>>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:22 PM
>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>> Generally notes that are immediately adjacent a definition in a
>>> standard
>>> cannot change the meaning in the standard but can explain what it
>>> already
>>> says. So they don't have the same effect as the definition - but
>>> since they
>>> are explaining what it says - the definition would convey their
>>> weight.
>>> However - for the regulations it may be that any notes would end up
>>> back in
>>> the front matter rather than with the definition. In that case we
>>> may want
>>> to / need to embed the info in the definition somehow. Like
>>>
>>> Definition
>>>
>>> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means ...... devices,
>>> systems
>>> (including web services and integrated products that deliver
>>> assistive
>>> services), yada yada yada.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>> -- ------------------------------
>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>> Jessica M.
>>> Brodey
>>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:56 AM
>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>> This revised definition addresses ATIA's concerns stated yesterday
>>> during
>>> the Subpart A report. We would support adopting this. One
>>> question -
>>> should Note 1 and Note 2 be treated as subsections and included in
>>> the
>>> regulation to give it the same force as the definition?
>>>
>>> Jessica
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _____
>>>
>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
>>> Vanderheiden
>>> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:11 PM
>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>> A way to meet the concerns that led to including the term "SERVICE"
>>> and "IN
>>> ACCESSING E&IT"
>>>
>>> (without creating the problems and grief that will come from
>>> trying to
>>> change the definition of AT)
>>>
>>> might be to keep definition but add notes that would be included
>>> with the
>>> definition .
>>>
>>> like this:
>>>
>>> Definition
>>>
>>> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means...etc etc etc
>>> (standard
>>> definition)
>>>
>>> Note 1: Virtual Assistive technology delivered as a web service, and
>>> integration of different products into a system that provides
>>> assistive
>>> functions to people with disabilities, are two examples of things
>>> that are
>>> included in the term 'systems' in this definition.
>>>
>>> Note 2: Within this Part, Assistive Technology means Assistive
>>> technology
>>> used in accessing E&IT.
>>>
>>>
>>> Gregg
>>>
>>> ------------------------
>>>
>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>>> Director - Trace R & D Center
>>> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>>> < <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
>>>
>>> DSS Player at <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b> http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>>>
>>> If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
>>> http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>>>
>>> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Wed, May 30 2007 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions

this can be covered without a list by expanding the functional explanation
for the target.

----- Original Message -----
From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 8:22 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions


It depends what your definition of comparable access is. For
example, at the National Parks, (Sorry but is is my best frame of
reference.) a Park offers captioning on the video and does not also
offer induction loops. In their mind, it is accessible but to
someone who has residual hearing, it is not the same. (If it were,
we would still have silent movies.) What happens is a standstill.

Another example, The NPS says okay instead of offering an induction
loop we will offer a portable DVD player with the sound. The fact
that it is impossible to synch the DVD player to the video appears to
be irrelevant to The Park. Is this comparable access? These are
both real examples of what is transpiring at National Parks. If
there was a list, this would be completely avoidable. The problem is
that I am forced to rely on people whose best interest is not
appropriate access or who are unable to understand what appropriate
access is. :)

There needs to be a way to have a place that I can point to that
says, it says right here what appropriate access is and you are not
providing it. :)

Janice




On May 30, 2007, at 7:21 AM, Tom Brett wrote:

>
>
> If there is AT that is available that provides comparable access I
> would say
> that the provider is being reasonable and that is what is required
> under ADA
> and 504.
>
> Can you provide an example of the type of AT.
>
> Tom Brett
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of jagbell
> Sent: Wednesday, May 30, 2007 7:10 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>
> I must not have been clear. What if the provider says the type of AT
> the person requires is not mandated so they don't have to provide it?
>
>
>
> On May 30, 2007, at 6:34 AM, David Poehlman wrote:
>
>> I think most cases are demonstrable?
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 2:12 PM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>
>>
>> Again, that sounds great in theory but what do you do when someone
>> else says, no its not? :)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 29, 2007, at 1:53 PM, David Poehlman wrote:
>>
>>> Assistive technology includes techniques so why would captioning
>>> and audio
>>> description not be AT? I think if we describe its functionality
>>> which will
>>> remain forever, we don't need a list?
>>>
>>> Asistive technology provides the means to access and or interact
>>> with
>>> information technology which permit those who cannot hear, see,
>>> manipulate...?
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee"
>>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 1:38 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>
>>>
>>> We need to be stronger than consideration. :) I am not sure how
>>> many
>>> people on the committee use AT but as you all know, our daughter
>>> does. The practical aspects are a nightmare. There are very few
>>> places in this country that have appropriate access and it is
>>> because
>>> no one understands what it means. I am happy to provide names and
>>> numbers of people who have requested this. We need to stop
>>> exacerbating the problem and come up with a solution that really
>>> works. :) It is not working at all which is why I am pushing so
>>> hard. A person with a disability is at the mercy of whoever is in
>>> charge whether it is a procurement person or an access person. No
>>> one's life should be at someone else's mercy. It is time for a
>>> change.:)
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 29, 2007, at 1:14 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here is what I have drafted as a suggestion for technical
>>>> assistance per
>>>> Access Board as related to the revised defintion of AT.
>>>>
>>>> Diane
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Possible Technical Assistance Information for Access Board
>>>> consideration-
>>>>
>>>> Reference AT resource lists such as the federal CAP listing of
>>>> assistive
>>>> technology used in accommodations (
>>>> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm>
>>>> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/Assistive_Technology.cfm) or the
>>>> Assistive Technology Act federally funded National Public
>>>> Website on
>>>> Assistive Technology ( http://assistivetech.net <http://
>>>> assistivetech.net/>
>>>> ). The Access Board could also consider recommending that each
>>>> agency
>>>> compile a list of the AT typically used in that agency. If made
>>>> public,
>>>> such information could be helpful in understanding the range of
>>>> items used
>>>> by federal agencies and could prove helpful to vendors, agencies
>>>> and
>>>> consumers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
>>>> Schomburg, Paul
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 10:57 AM
>>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>>> Cc: Schomburg, Paul
>>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] FW: Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Folks: Alternatively, could the Access Board recommend that each
>>>> agency
>>>> compile its own list of what AT it uses? If this is public
>>>> information it
>>>> could be used to compile a government-wide list of AT used by the
>>>> Federal
>>>> Government. Reference to each agency's list could be included as
>>>> part of
>>>> the market research requirements that each agency is responsible to
>>>> conduct.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, Paul
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Paul G. Schomburg, Sr. Manager
>>>>
>>>> Tel: (202) 912-3800 x114
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _____
>>>>
>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2007 11:17 AM
>>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>>> Cc: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; teitac-subparta-
>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> While not an outside list, the Department of Defense's web site for
>>>> the
>>>> Computer/Electronic Accommodations Program (CAP) includes
>>>> information on
>>>> lots of AT devices and some pretty good language as to their
>>>> utility. Could
>>>> we consider referencing this site as an example of what AT might
>>>> be, but not
>>>> limited to, defined as?
>>>>
>>>> http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm
>>>> <http://www.tricare.mil/cap/acc_sol/browse_AssisTech.cfm>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "jagbell" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>>
>>>> 05/29/2007 10:21 AM
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Please respond to
>>>> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> To
>>>>
>>>> "TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> cc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Subject
>>>>
>>>> Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> An outside list is okay if it is controlling. I think we need to
>>>> rely on
>>>> the consumers for this issue. The bottom line is that the current
>>>> methodology is not working so we need to rethink how to approach
>>>> this.
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>> Janice
>>>> On May 29, 2007, at 10:04 AM, Jessica M. Brodey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think Andrew, Tom, and Gregg all have valid points. First,
>>>> captioning is
>>>> a means of providing access through technology, but it is not
>>>> necessarily
>>>> assistive technology. Second, creating a list can be dangerous -
>>>> there is
>>>> the risk of excluding technologies (which then may not be provided
>>>> upon
>>>> request because they are not on the list), a list quickly becomes
>>>> outdated,
>>>> and it could potentially stifle innovation. If some people feel
>>>> that a list
>>>> is critical, perhaps we can ask the Access Board to publish a non-
>>>> normative
>>>> list outside the regulations.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jessica Brodey
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _____
>>>>
>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom
>>>> Brett
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 2:56 PM
>>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The concern I would have is that by specifying particular types of
>>>> assistive
>>>> technology would be that you will limit future innovation. The
>>>> government
>>>> could read that all I need is to provide captions and then new
>>>> technology
>>>> comes out that provides seamless ASL
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tom Brett
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _____
>>>>
>>>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>>> jagbell
>>>> Sent: Monday, May 28, 2007 9:43 AM
>>>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The language "such as but not limited to" is critical but it is
>>>> also
>>>> critical that the items are listed in alphabetical order so that
>>>> one item is
>>>> not more important than another.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The reason we need to list is that no one outside maybe a 100
>>>> people :)
>>>> understands what assistive technology is.:) In the past few week,
>>>> I have
>>>> been asked countless times, "is there a list in the law that I can
>>>> refer
>>>> to". When I explain that the language is meant to be tailored to
>>>> the
>>>> individual, the person who is supposed to implement the access is
>>>> exasperated. While this has been in the museum setting, it has
>>>> also been in
>>>> the National Park setting. It sounds wonderful in theory but in
>>>> reality, no
>>>> one understands generalities. Therefore nothing gets done because
>>>> no one
>>>> has time to do the research or if it does get done, the information
>>>> gathered
>>>> is based on what vendors want to sell.:)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On a personal note, years ago, the Department of Education did not
>>>> want to
>>>> provide a service that was clearly needed and required . They told
>>>> me that
>>>> they were not required to provide it. When I showed then the
>>>> service was
>>>> listed in the legislation with "such as but not limited to"
>>>> language, the
>>>> service was provided. :) If this list was not provided, I would
>>>> have had to
>>>> sue them. People who have disabilities can make suing people a
>>>> full-time
>>>> job. :) This is not a good option. Clarity is.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The way the law is set-up now is clearly not working. It is time
>>>> for a
>>>> change and the use of the language"such as but not limited to" with
>>>> examples
>>>> listed in alphabetical order can be inserted and used as a guide
>>>> and
>>>> starting point for appropriate access. We as a group need to
>>>> remember that
>>>> the goal here is to not only assist the procurement officers but
>>>> also the
>>>> end user who can point to legal language to obtain what they need
>>>> when there
>>>> may be an artificial barrier (a boss :) ) who is preventing the
>>>> person from
>>>> obtaining the appropriate access they need to have appropriate
>>>> access.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Enjoy the rest of the weekend!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Best,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Janice
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 25, 2007, at 3:58 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Concur.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Also we don't want to start listing AT. Where do you stop. Who
>>>> feels left
>>>> out. Dangerous way to define.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't agree that equivalents such as audio description or
>>>> captioning are
>>>> assistive technology. An argument could be made that a caption
>>>> decoder is
>>>> AT, but not the captions.
>>>>
>>>> AWK
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _____
>>>>
>>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>>> jagbell
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 3:09 PM
>>>> To: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC
>>>> Subpart A
>>>> Subcommittee
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>>
>>>> I have added my additions below in red. Please note, my
>>>> suggestions are in
>>>> alphabetical order. :)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 25, 2007, at 2:40 PM, Diane Golden wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The following is what I have drafted based on the feedback at the
>>>> meeting.
>>>> New language is in CAPS.
>>>>
>>>> Diane
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Assistive Technology means any item, piece of equipment, or system,
>>>> whether
>>>> acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is commonly
>>>> used to
>>>> increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of
>>>> individuals with
>>>> disabilities. AS USED IN THIS PART, THE TERM INCLUDES TRADITIONAL
>>>> ASSISTIVE
>>>> TECHNOLOGY HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ALONG WITH VIRTUAL ASSISTIVE
>>>> TECHNOLOGY
>>>> DELIVERED AS A WEB SERVICE AND INTEGRATION OF PRODUCTS INTO A
>>>> SYSTEM THAT
>>>> PROVIDES ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY FUNCTIONS ALLOWING INDIVIDUALS WITH
>>>> DISABILITIES TO ACCESS ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY such
>>>> as but not
>>>> limited to assistive listening devices, audio description,
>>>> captioning.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Diane Cordry Golden, Ph.D., Director
>>>> Missouri Assistive Technology
>>>> 816/350-5280 (direct voice)
>>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>>>> www.at.mo.gov
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
>>>> Vanderheiden
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 1:22 PM
>>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>>
>>>> Generally notes that are immediately adjacent a definition in a
>>>> standard
>>>> cannot change the meaning in the standard but can explain what it
>>>> already
>>>> says. So they don't have the same effect as the definition - but
>>>> since they
>>>> are explaining what it says - the definition would convey their
>>>> weight.
>>>> However - for the regulations it may be that any notes would end up
>>>> back in
>>>> the front matter rather than with the definition. In that case we
>>>> may want
>>>> to / need to embed the info in the definition somehow. Like
>>>>
>>>> Definition
>>>>
>>>> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means ...... devices,
>>>> systems
>>>> (including web services and integrated products that deliver
>>>> assistive
>>>> services), yada yada yada.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>> -- ------------------------------
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _____
>>>>
>>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>>>> Jessica M.
>>>> Brodey
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 25, 2007 7:56 AM
>>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>>
>>>> This revised definition addresses ATIA's concerns stated yesterday
>>>> during
>>>> the Subpart A report. We would support adopting this. One
>>>> question -
>>>> should Note 1 and Note 2 be treated as subsections and included in
>>>> the
>>>> regulation to give it the same force as the definition?
>>>>
>>>> Jessica
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _____
>>>>
>>>> From: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [
>>>> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>>> mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
>>>> Vanderheiden
>>>> Sent: Thursday, May 24, 2007 2:11 PM
>>>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>>>> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Definitions of AT - Suggestions
>>>>
>>>> A way to meet the concerns that led to including the term "SERVICE"
>>>> and "IN
>>>> ACCESSING E&IT"
>>>>
>>>> (without creating the problems and grief that will come from
>>>> trying to
>>>> change the definition of AT)
>>>>
>>>> might be to keep definition but add notes that would be included
>>>> with the
>>>> definition .
>>>>
>>>> like this:
>>>>
>>>> Definition
>>>>
>>>> Assistive technology: Assistive technology means...etc etc etc
>>>> (standard
>>>> definition)
>>>>
>>>> Note 1: Virtual Assistive technology delivered as a web service,
>>>> and
>>>> integration of different products into a system that provides
>>>> assistive
>>>> functions to people with disabilities, are two examples of things
>>>> that are
>>>> included in the term 'systems' in this definition.
>>>>
>>>> Note 2: Within this Part, Assistive Technology means Assistive
>>>> technology
>>>> used in accessing E&IT.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Gregg
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>>> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
>>>> Director - Trace R & D Center
>>>> University of Wisconsin-Madison
>>>> < <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX
>>>> 608/262-8848
>>>>
>>>> DSS Player at <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b> http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>>>>
>>>> If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
>>>> http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>>>>
>>>> <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>