Thread Subject: Fwd: Please Read: Recap of Dec 13 call

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Judy Brewer
Date: Tue, Dec 18 2007 4:05 PM
Subject: Fwd: Please Read: Recap of Dec 13 call

Forwarding. Please read below.

>Subject: Please Read: Recap of Dec 13 call
>Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2007 14:48:22 -0600
>From: "BLACKLER, ELLEN (ATTSI)" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>To: "TEITAC Task Force" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>Cc: "BLACKLER, ELLEN (ATTSI)" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >,
> "Judy Brewer" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
>Team ? Below (and attached) is the recap of the
>Dec 13 call. Please review before the Dec 20th call.
>
>Recap of December 13 Task Force Call
>
>
>1. The Task Force discussed the service and
>equipment that is covered by the FCC?s Section
>255 rules, and reached a general understanding
>on what is covered today. In addition, the Task
>Force agreed that it was not necessary for its
>work to identify the communications products
>that are covered or not with great
>precision. Instead, the Task Force agreed that
>if we could identify some examples of products
>covered by Section 255 for which the technical
>standards would be relevant that would be enough
>for the group to evaluate how the standard should be treated for Section 255.
>
>2. General Provisions regarding Purpose and
>Application of the technical standards.
>
> a. The Task Force agreed to
> recommend to the TEITAC the inclusion of the
> language of the current November 27 EWG draft
> in Section 1194.1 Purpose, describing the 255
> related purpose of the guidelines. This
> language closely tracks the current rules
> regarding the coverage of the section 255 rules
> and gives context to the rest of the draft and
> clarifies the difference in scope between
> section 508 (procurement) and section 255 guidelines (design and manufacture).
>
>b. The Task Force agreed to recommend to the
>TEITAC the following in Section 1194.2 Application:
>· Add a subheading, ?Section 508?, at the
>beginning of this section to denote the current
>provisions are for Section 508 purposes.
>· Add a second section, ?Section
>255?, followed by the language currently
>entitled Version 4 and Version 5. This language
>is from the current 255 guidelines modified to
>include interconnected VOIP. The Application
>section would then have two subsections, one
>generally describing the obligations under
>section 508 and the other generally describing the obligations under 255.
>
>3. Technical Provisions
>
>a. Accessibility Configuration (previously in
>1.2 A of General Technical Requirements, now in Subpart D, 5.2.3 2-C.)
>
>· The Task Force noted that the provision
>changed materially between the October 26 draft
>and the November 27 draft when it was
>moved. The October language placed an
>affirmative obligation on agencies to activate
>features and configure products to be
>accessible. The November draft 26 requires 2
>things: 1) ?Products procured must be capable
>of being configured to be accessible to and
>usable by people with disabilities while
>simultaneously meeting the products function.?;
>and 2) accessibility features should not disable any function.
>· Language in November draft. The Task
>Force recommends to the TEITAC that the
>requirements in the November draft should be
>included in the 255 guidelines and should be
>moved into the ?General Technical Requirements? section modified as follows:
>
>?Products procured must be capable of being
>configured to be accessible to [and usable by]
>people with disabilities while simultaneously
>meeting the product?s function. The
>accessibility features should not disable any functions.
>
>Note: For purposes of Section 255, ?products?
>are the telecommunications equipment, voicemail
>and interactive menu equipment, interconnected
>VOIP equipment and CPE covered by the FCC?s rules implementing section 255.?
>.
>o ?usable to? is bracketed, because the
>Task Force wanted the TEITAC to discuss the
>inclusion of usable, as defined in the November
>draft, in provisions that would apply to Section
>508 as well as Section 255. The Task Force
>would like the TEITAC to discuss whether to
>leave usable to in, take it out or keep usable to for section 255 only.
>
>· October draft language. The Task Force
>also recommends that the agency obligation in
>the October draft should be reinstated and
>included in the ?Implementation, Operation and
>Maintenance? Section modified as follows.
>
>?In complying with this subpart, each [agency or
>entity covered by section 255] must activate
>accessibility features and configure products so
>that they are accessible to and usable by people with disabilities.
>
>Note: For section 508 the agency would have the
>obligation. For section 255 it is the service
>provider or manufacturer covered by section 255.?
>
>

From: Dave Michael
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: Please Read: Recap of Dec 13 call

Greetings,

First. let me thank you for being able to join the Task Force a
little late in the place of Mary Beth who is dealing with some family
matters of great urgency.

Second, at the risk of plowing already treated ground from the last
meeting, in reviewing the below, i had a question:

Under the 3 - a - first bullet - 2) it states "and 2) accessibility
features should not disable any function." My question is,
hypothetically, if a device has a voice navigation function and
thereby negates the need for a visual display, why not let the device
disable the display function to save battery life and perhaps device
cycles. Kind of a poor example but should illustrate the need for
flexibility in shutting off a function that is not needed, to keep
the device speed and battery life optimal for the user.

Cheers

Dave




On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:48 PM, BLACKLER, ELLEN (ATTSI) wrote:

> Team � Below (and attached) is the recap of the Dec 13 call.
> Please review before the Dec 20th call.
>
>
> Recap of December 13 Task Force Call
>
>
>
>
> 1. The Task Force discussed the service and equipment that is
> covered by the FCC�s Section 255 rules, and reached a general
> understanding on what is covered today. In addition, the Task
> Force agreed that it was not necessary for its work to identify the
> communications products that are covered or not with great
> precision. Instead, the Task Force agreed that if we could
> identify some examples of products covered by Section 255 for which
> the technical standards would be relevant that would be enough for
> the group to evaluate how the standard should be treated for
> Section 255.
>
>
> 2. General Provisions regarding Purpose and Application of the
> technical standards.
>
>
> a. The Task Force agreed to recommend to the TEITAC
> the inclusion of the language of the current November 27 EWG draft
> in Section 1194.1 Purpose, describing the 255 related purpose of
> the guidelines. This language closely tracks the current rules
> regarding the coverage of the section 255 rules and gives context
> to the rest of the draft and clarifies the difference in scope
> between section 508 (procurement) and section 255 guidelines
> (design and manufacture).
>
>
> b. The Task Force agreed to recommend to the TEITAC the following
> in Section 1194.2 Application:
>
> · Add a subheading, �Section 508�, at the beginning of this
> section to denote the current provisions are for Section 508 purposes.
>
> · Add a second section, �Section 255�, followed by the
> language currently entitled Version 4 and Version 5. This language
> is from the current 255 guidelines modified to include
> interconnected VOIP. The Application section would then have two
> subsections, one generally describing the obligations under
> section 508 and the other generally describing the obligations
> under 255.
>
>
> 3. Technical Provisions
>
>
>
> a. Accessibility Configuration (previously in 1.2 A of General
> Technical Requirements, now in Subpart D, 5.2.3 2-C.)
>
>
>
> · The Task Force noted that the provision changed materially
> between the October 26 draft and the November 27 draft when it was
> moved. The October language placed an affirmative obligation on
> agencies to activate features and configure products to be
> accessible. The November draft 26 requires 2 things: 1) �Products
> procured must be capable of being configured to be accessible to
> and usable by people with disabilities while simultaneously meeting
> the products function.�; and 2) accessibility features should not
> disable any function.
>
> · Language in November draft. The Task Force recommends to
> the TEITAC that the requirements in the November draft should be
> included in the 255 guidelines and should be moved into the
> �General Technical Requirements� section modified as follows:
>
>
> �Products procured must be capable of being configured to be
> accessible to [and usable by] people with disabilities while
> simultaneously meeting the product�s function. The accessibility
> features should not disable any functions.
>
>
> Note: For purposes of Section 255, �products� are the
> telecommunications equipment, voicemail and interactive menu
> equipment, interconnected VOIP equipment and CPE covered by the
> FCC�s rules implementing section 255.�
>
> .
>
> o �usable to� is bracketed, because the Task Force wanted the
> TEITAC to discuss the inclusion of usable, as defined in the
> November draft, in provisions that would apply to Section 508 as
> well as Section 255. The Task Force would like the TEITAC to
> discuss whether to leave usable to in, take it out or keep usable
> to for section 255 only.
>
>
>
> · October draft language. The Task Force also recommends
> that the agency obligation in the October draft should be
> reinstated and included in the �Implementation, Operation and
> Maintenance� Section modified as follows.
>
>
>
> �In complying with this subpart, each [agency or entity covered by
> section 255] must activate accessibility features and configure
> products so that they are accessible to and usable by people with
> disabilities.
>
>
> Note: For section 508 the agency would have the obligation. For
> section 255 it is the service provider or manufacturer covered by
> section 255.�
>
>
>
>
> <Recap of December 13 Task Force Call.doc>
>

From: Peter Korn
Date: Thu, Dec 20 2007 12:40 PM
Subject: Re: Please Read: Recap of Dec 13 call

Hi guys,

Here is a first draft attempt at a note for Section D provision 2-C:

Note: this provision is not intended to prevent product functions from
being tied together; turning one on can turn another off so long as this
can be controlled by user option, and by default turning on an
accessibility feature shall not turn off other product functions.


If there aren't further comments on this, I'll forward this on to the
larger TEITAC alias.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.


> Greetings,
>
> First. let me thank you for being able to join the Task Force a little
> late in the place of Mary Beth who is dealing with some family matters
> of great urgency.
>
> Second, at the risk of plowing already treated ground from the last
> meeting, in reviewing the below, i had a question:
>
> Under the 3 - a - first bullet - 2) it states "and 2) accessibility
> features should not disable any function." My question is,
> hypothetically, if a device has a voice navigation function and thereby
> negates the need for a visual display, why not let the device disable
> the display function to save battery life and perhaps device cycles.
> Kind of a poor example but should illustrate the need for flexibility
> in shutting off a function that is not needed, to keep the device speed
> and battery life optimal for the user.
>
> Cheers
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:48 PM, BLACKLER, ELLEN (ATTSI) wrote:
>
>> Team � Below (and attached) is the recap of the Dec 13 call. Please
>> review before the Dec 20^th call.
>>
>>
>>
>> *Recap of December 13 Task Force Call*
>>
>>
>>
>> *_ _*
>>
>> 1. The Task Force discussed the service and equipment that is covered
>> by the FCC�s Section 255 rules, and reached a general understanding on
>> what is covered today. In addition, the Task Force agreed that it was
>> not necessary for its work to identify the communications products
>> that are covered or not with great precision. Instead, the Task
>> Force agreed that if we could identify some examples of products
>> covered by Section 255 for which the technical standards would be
>> relevant that would be enough for the group to evaluate how the
>> standard should be treated for Section 255.
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. General Provisions regarding Purpose and Application of the
>> technical standards.
>>
>>
>>
>> a. The Task Force agreed to recommend to the TEITAC the
>> inclusion of the language of the current November 27 EWG draft in
>> /Section 1194.1 Purpose, /describing the 255 related purpose of the
>> guidelines. This language closely tracks the current rules regarding
>> the coverage of the section 255 rules and gives context to the rest of
>> the draft and clarifies the difference in scope between section 508
>> (procurement) and section 255 guidelines (design and manufacture).
>>
>>
>>
>> b. The Task Force agreed to recommend to the TEITAC the following in
>> /Section 1194.2 Application:/
>>
>> · Add a subheading, �Section 508�/,/ at the beginning of this
>> section to denote the current provisions are for Section 508 purposes.
>>
>> · Add a second section, �Section 255�, followed by the
>> language currently entitled Version 4 and Version 5. This language is
>> from the current 255 guidelines modified to include interconnected
>> VOIP. The Application section would then have two subsections, one
>> generally describing the obligations under section 508 and the other
>> generally describing the obligations under 255.
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. Technical Provisions
>>
>> / /
>>
>> a./ Accessibility Configuration/ (previously in 1.2 A of General
>> Technical Requirements, now in Subpart D, 5.2.3 2-C.)
>>
>> / /
>>
>> · The Task Force noted that the provision changed materially
>> between the October 26 draft and the November 27 draft when it was
>> moved. The October language placed an affirmative obligation on
>> agencies to activate features and configure products to be accessible.
>> The November draft 26 requires 2 things: 1) �Products procured must
>> be capable of being configured to be accessible to and usable by
>> people with disabilities while simultaneously meeting the products
>> function.�; and 2) accessibility features should not disable any
>> function.
>>
>> · _Language in November draft._ The Task Force recommends to
>> the TEITAC that the requirements in the November draft should be
>> included in the 255 guidelines and should be moved into the �General
>> Technical Requirements� section modified as follows:
>>
>>
>>
>> �Products procured must be capable of being configured to be
>> accessible to [and usable by] people with disabilities while
>> simultaneously meeting the product�s function. The accessibility
>> features should not disable any functions.
>>
>>
>>
>> _Note: For purposes of Section 255, �products� are the
>> telecommunications equipment, voicemail and interactive menu
>> equipment, interconnected VOIP equipment and CPE covered by the FCC�s
>> rules implementing section 255.�_
>>
>> .
>>
>> o �usable to� is bracketed, because the Task Force wanted the
>> TEITAC to discuss the inclusion of usable, as defined in the November
>> draft, in provisions that would apply to Section 508 as well as
>> Section 255. The Task Force would like the TEITAC to discuss whether
>> to leave usable to in, take it out or keep usable to for section 255 only.
>>
>> / /
>>
>> · _October draft language_. The Task Force also recommends
>> that the agency obligation in the October draft should be reinstated
>> and included in the �Implementation, Operation and Maintenance�
>> Section modified as follows.
>>
>> _ _
>>
>> �In complying with this subpart, each [agency _or entity covered by
>> section 255_] must activate accessibility features and configure
>> products so that they are accessible to and usable by people with
>> disabilities.
>>
>>
>>
>> _Note: For section 508 the agency would have the obligation. For
>> section 255 it is the service provider or manufacturer covered by
>> section 255._�
>>
>> / /
>>
>>
>> <Recap of December 13 Task Force Call.doc>
>>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Dec 20 2007 1:30 PM
Subject: Re: Please Read: Recap of Dec 13 call

Is this easier to read and understand?

Note: This provision is not intended to prevent a product feature that would
allow the user to tie product functions together (e.g. turning one on would
turn another off) so long as turning on an accessibility feature did not
turn off other product functions by default.



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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 1:39 PM
> To: TEITAC Task Force
> Subject: Re: [teitac-tf] Please Read: Recap of Dec 13 call
>
> Hi guys,
>
> Here is a first draft attempt at a note for Section D provision 2-C:
>
> Note: this provision is not intended to prevent product
> functions from being tied together; turning one on can turn
> another off so long as this can be controlled by user option,
> and by default turning on an accessibility feature shall not
> turn off other product functions.
>
>
> If there aren't further comments on this, I'll forward this
> on to the larger TEITAC alias.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
>
> > Greetings,
> >
> > First. let me thank you for being able to join the Task
> Force a little
> > late in the place of Mary Beth who is dealing with some
> family matters
> > of great urgency.
> >
> > Second, at the risk of plowing already treated ground from the last
> > meeting, in reviewing the below, i had a question:
> >
> > Under the 3 - a - first bullet - 2) it states "and 2)
> accessibility
> > features should not disable any function." My question is,
> > hypothetically, if a device has a voice navigation function
> and thereby
> > negates the need for a visual display, why not let the
> device disable
> > the display function to save battery life and perhaps
> device cycles.
> > Kind of a poor example but should illustrate the need for
> flexibility
> > in shutting off a function that is not needed, to keep the
> device speed
> > and battery life optimal for the user.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:48 PM, BLACKLER, ELLEN (ATTSI) wrote:
> >
> >> Team - Below (and attached) is the recap of the Dec 13
> call. Please
> >> review before the Dec 20^th call.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *Recap of December 13 Task Force Call*
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *_ _*
> >>
> >> 1. The Task Force discussed the service and equipment
> that is covered
> >> by the FCC's Section 255 rules, and reached a general
> understanding on
> >> what is covered today. In addition, the Task Force agreed
> that it was
> >> not necessary for its work to identify the communications products
> >> that are covered or not with great precision. Instead, the Task
> >> Force agreed that if we could identify some examples of products
> >> covered by Section 255 for which the technical standards would be
> >> relevant that would be enough for the group to evaluate how the
> >> standard should be treated for Section 255.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2. General Provisions regarding Purpose and Application of the
> >> technical standards.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> a. The Task Force agreed to recommend to the
> TEITAC the
> >> inclusion of the language of the current November 27 EWG draft in
> >> /Section 1194.1 Purpose, /describing the 255 related
> purpose of the
> >> guidelines. This language closely tracks the current
> rules regarding
> >> the coverage of the section 255 rules and gives context to
> the rest of
> >> the draft and clarifies the difference in scope between
> section 508
> >> (procurement) and section 255 guidelines (design and manufacture).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> b. The Task Force agreed to recommend to the TEITAC the
> following in
> >> /Section 1194.2 Application:/
> >>
> >> . Add a subheading, "Section 508"/,/ at the
> beginning of this
> >> section to denote the current provisions are for Section
> 508 purposes.
> >>
> >> . Add a second section, "Section 255", followed by the
> >> language currently entitled Version 4 and Version 5. This
> language is
> >> from the current 255 guidelines modified to include interconnected
> >> VOIP. The Application section would then have two
> subsections, one
> >> generally describing the obligations under section 508 and
> the other
> >> generally describing the obligations under 255.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 3. Technical Provisions
> >>
> >> / /
> >>
> >> a./ Accessibility Configuration/ (previously in 1.2 A of General
> >> Technical Requirements, now in Subpart D, 5.2.3 2-C.)
> >>
> >> / /
> >>
> >> . The Task Force noted that the provision changed
> materially
> >> between the October 26 draft and the November 27 draft when it was
> >> moved. The October language placed an affirmative obligation on
> >> agencies to activate features and configure products to be
> accessible.
> >> The November draft 26 requires 2 things: 1) "Products
> procured must
> >> be capable of being configured to be accessible to and usable by
> >> people with disabilities while simultaneously meeting the products
> >> function."; and 2) accessibility features should not disable any
> >> function.
> >>
> >> . _Language in November draft._ The Task Force
> recommends to
> >> the TEITAC that the requirements in the November draft should be
> >> included in the 255 guidelines and should be moved into
> the "General
> >> Technical Requirements" section modified as follows:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Products procured must be capable of being configured to be
> >> accessible to [and usable by] people with disabilities while
> >> simultaneously meeting the product's function. The accessibility
> >> features should not disable any functions.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _Note: For purposes of Section 255, "products" are the
> >> telecommunications equipment, voicemail and interactive menu
> >> equipment, interconnected VOIP equipment and CPE covered
> by the FCC's
> >> rules implementing section 255."_
> >>
> >> .
> >>
> >> o "usable to" is bracketed, because the Task Force
> wanted the
> >> TEITAC to discuss the inclusion of usable, as defined in
> the November
> >> draft, in provisions that would apply to Section 508 as well as
> >> Section 255. The Task Force would like the TEITAC to
> discuss whether
> >> to leave usable to in, take it out or keep usable to for
> section 255 only.
> >>
> >> / /
> >>
> >> . _October draft language_. The Task Force also recommends
> >> that the agency obligation in the October draft should be
> reinstated
> >> and included in the "Implementation, Operation and Maintenance"
> >> Section modified as follows.
> >>
> >> _ _
> >>
> >> "In complying with this subpart, each [agency _or entity
> covered by
> >> section 255_] must activate accessibility features and configure
> >> products so that they are accessible to and usable by people with
> >> disabilities.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _Note: For section 508 the agency would have the obligation. For
> >> section 255 it is the service provider or manufacturer covered by
> >> section 255._"
> >>
> >> / /
> >>
> >>
> >> <Recap of December 13 Task Force Call.doc>
> >>

From: Peter Korn
Date: Thu, Dec 20 2007 1:45 PM
Subject: Re: Please Read: Recap of Dec 13 call

Hi Gregg,

Yes it is, thanks.

May I invite you to propose it to the TEITAC alias?


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.


> Is this easier to read and understand?
>
> Note: This provision is not intended to prevent a product feature that would
> allow the user to tie product functions together (e.g. turning one on would
> turn another off) so long as turning on an accessibility feature did not
> turn off other product functions by default.
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 1:39 PM
>> To: TEITAC Task Force
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-tf] Please Read: Recap of Dec 13 call
>>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> Here is a first draft attempt at a note for Section D provision 2-C:
>>
>> Note: this provision is not intended to prevent product
>> functions from being tied together; turning one on can turn
>> another off so long as this can be controlled by user option,
>> and by default turning on an accessibility feature shall not
>> turn off other product functions.
>>
>>
>> If there aren't further comments on this, I'll forward this
>> on to the larger TEITAC alias.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Peter Korn
>> Accessibility Architect,
>> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>>
>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> First. let me thank you for being able to join the Task
>> Force a little
>>> late in the place of Mary Beth who is dealing with some
>> family matters
>>> of great urgency.
>>>
>>> Second, at the risk of plowing already treated ground from the last
>>> meeting, in reviewing the below, i had a question:
>>>
>>> Under the 3 - a - first bullet - 2) it states "and 2)
>> accessibility
>>> features should not disable any function." My question is,
>>> hypothetically, if a device has a voice navigation function
>> and thereby
>>> negates the need for a visual display, why not let the
>> device disable
>>> the display function to save battery life and perhaps
>> device cycles.
>>> Kind of a poor example but should illustrate the need for
>> flexibility
>>> in shutting off a function that is not needed, to keep the
>> device speed
>>> and battery life optimal for the user.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:48 PM, BLACKLER, ELLEN (ATTSI) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Team - Below (and attached) is the recap of the Dec 13
>> call. Please
>>>> review before the Dec 20^th call.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Recap of December 13 Task Force Call*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *_ _*
>>>>
>>>> 1. The Task Force discussed the service and equipment
>> that is covered
>>>> by the FCC's Section 255 rules, and reached a general
>> understanding on
>>>> what is covered today. In addition, the Task Force agreed
>> that it was
>>>> not necessary for its work to identify the communications products
>>>> that are covered or not with great precision. Instead, the Task
>>>> Force agreed that if we could identify some examples of products
>>>> covered by Section 255 for which the technical standards would be
>>>> relevant that would be enough for the group to evaluate how the
>>>> standard should be treated for Section 255.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. General Provisions regarding Purpose and Application of the
>>>> technical standards.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> a. The Task Force agreed to recommend to the
>> TEITAC the
>>>> inclusion of the language of the current November 27 EWG draft in
>>>> /Section 1194.1 Purpose, /describing the 255 related
>> purpose of the
>>>> guidelines. This language closely tracks the current
>> rules regarding
>>>> the coverage of the section 255 rules and gives context to
>> the rest of
>>>> the draft and clarifies the difference in scope between
>> section 508
>>>> (procurement) and section 255 guidelines (design and manufacture).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> b. The Task Force agreed to recommend to the TEITAC the
>> following in
>>>> /Section 1194.2 Application:/
>>>>
>>>> . Add a subheading, "Section 508"/,/ at the
>> beginning of this
>>>> section to denote the current provisions are for Section
>> 508 purposes.
>>>> . Add a second section, "Section 255", followed by the
>>>> language currently entitled Version 4 and Version 5. This
>> language is
>>>> from the current 255 guidelines modified to include interconnected
>>>> VOIP. The Application section would then have two
>> subsections, one
>>>> generally describing the obligations under section 508 and
>> the other
>>>> generally describing the obligations under 255.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. Technical Provisions
>>>>
>>>> / /
>>>>
>>>> a./ Accessibility Configuration/ (previously in 1.2 A of General
>>>> Technical Requirements, now in Subpart D, 5.2.3 2-C.)
>>>>
>>>> / /
>>>>
>>>> . The Task Force noted that the provision changed
>> materially
>>>> between the October 26 draft and the November 27 draft when it was
>>>> moved. The October language placed an affirmative obligation on
>>>> agencies to activate features and configure products to be
>> accessible.
>>>> The November draft 26 requires 2 things: 1) "Products
>> procured must
>>>> be capable of being configured to be accessible to and usable by
>>>> people with disabilities while simultaneously meeting the products
>>>> function."; and 2) accessibility features should not disable any
>>>> function.
>>>>
>>>> . _Language in November draft._ The Task Force
>> recommends to
>>>> the TEITAC that the requirements in the November draft should be
>>>> included in the 255 guidelines and should be moved into
>> the "General
>>>> Technical Requirements" section modified as follows:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Products procured must be capable of being configured to be
>>>> accessible to [and usable by] people with disabilities while
>>>> simultaneously meeting the product's function. The accessibility
>>>> features should not disable any functions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _Note: For purposes of Section 255, "products" are the
>>>> telecommunications equipment, voicemail and interactive menu
>>>> equipment, interconnected VOIP equipment and CPE covered
>> by the FCC's
>>>> rules implementing section 255."_
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> o "usable to" is bracketed, because the Task Force
>> wanted the
>>>> TEITAC to discuss the inclusion of usable, as defined in
>> the November
>>>> draft, in provisions that would apply to Section 508 as well as
>>>> Section 255. The Task Force would like the TEITAC to
>> discuss whether
>>>> to leave usable to in, take it out or keep usable to for
>> section 255 only.
>>>> / /
>>>>
>>>> . _October draft language_. The Task Force also recommends
>>>> that the agency obligation in the October draft should be
>> reinstated
>>>> and included in the "Implementation, Operation and Maintenance"
>>>> Section modified as follows.
>>>>
>>>> _ _
>>>>
>>>> "In complying with this subpart, each [agency _or entity
>> covered by
>>>> section 255_] must activate accessibility features and configure
>>>> products so that they are accessible to and usable by people with
>>>> disabilities.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _Note: For section 508 the agency would have the obligation. For
>>>> section 255 it is the service provider or manufacturer covered by
>>>> section 255._"
>>>>
>>>> / /
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <Recap of December 13 Task Force Call.doc>
>>>>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Dec 20 2007 2:10 PM
Subject: Re: Please Read: Recap of Dec 13 call

Sure

I'll let it sit here and cook a bit longer to see if anyone else has a
comment or improvement and then post up to the main list. or the Chairs
could.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn
> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 2:47 PM
> To: TEITAC Task Force
> Subject: Re: [teitac-tf] Please Read: Recap of Dec 13 call
>
> Hi Gregg,
>
> Yes it is, thanks.
>
> May I invite you to propose it to the TEITAC alias?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
>
> > Is this easier to read and understand?
> >
> > Note: This provision is not intended to prevent a product
> feature that
> > would allow the user to tie product functions together
> (e.g. turning
> > one on would turn another off) so long as turning on an
> accessibility
> > feature did not turn off other product functions by default.
> >
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> >> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn
> >> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 1:39 PM
> >> To: TEITAC Task Force
> >> Subject: Re: [teitac-tf] Please Read: Recap of Dec 13 call
> >>
> >> Hi guys,
> >>
> >> Here is a first draft attempt at a note for Section D
> provision 2-C:
> >>
> >> Note: this provision is not intended to prevent product functions
> >> from being tied together; turning one on can turn another
> off so long
> >> as this can be controlled by user option, and by default
> turning on
> >> an accessibility feature shall not turn off other product
> functions.
> >>
> >>
> >> If there aren't further comments on this, I'll forward
> this on to the
> >> larger TEITAC alias.
> >>
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >>
> >> Peter Korn
> >> Accessibility Architect,
> >> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
> >>
> >>
> >>> Greetings,
> >>>
> >>> First. let me thank you for being able to join the Task
> >> Force a little
> >>> late in the place of Mary Beth who is dealing with some
> >> family matters
> >>> of great urgency.
> >>>
> >>> Second, at the risk of plowing already treated ground
> from the last
> >>> meeting, in reviewing the below, i had a question:
> >>>
> >>> Under the 3 - a - first bullet - 2) it states "and 2)
> >> accessibility
> >>> features should not disable any function." My question is,
> >>> hypothetically, if a device has a voice navigation function
> >> and thereby
> >>> negates the need for a visual display, why not let the
> >> device disable
> >>> the display function to save battery life and perhaps
> >> device cycles.
> >>> Kind of a poor example but should illustrate the need for
> >> flexibility
> >>> in shutting off a function that is not needed, to keep the
> >> device speed
> >>> and battery life optimal for the user.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>>
> >>> Dave
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:48 PM, BLACKLER, ELLEN (ATTSI) wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Team - Below (and attached) is the recap of the Dec 13
> >> call. Please
> >>>> review before the Dec 20^th call.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> *Recap of December 13 Task Force Call*
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> *_ _*
> >>>>
> >>>> 1. The Task Force discussed the service and equipment
> >> that is covered
> >>>> by the FCC's Section 255 rules, and reached a general
> >> understanding on
> >>>> what is covered today. In addition, the Task Force agreed
> >> that it was
> >>>> not necessary for its work to identify the
> communications products
> >>>> that are covered or not with great precision. Instead, the Task
> >>>> Force agreed that if we could identify some examples of products
> >>>> covered by Section 255 for which the technical standards
> would be
> >>>> relevant that would be enough for the group to evaluate how the
> >>>> standard should be treated for Section 255.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 2. General Provisions regarding Purpose and Application of the
> >>>> technical standards.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> a. The Task Force agreed to recommend to the
> >> TEITAC the
> >>>> inclusion of the language of the current November 27 EWG
> draft in
> >>>> /Section 1194.1 Purpose, /describing the 255 related
> >> purpose of the
> >>>> guidelines. This language closely tracks the current
> >> rules regarding
> >>>> the coverage of the section 255 rules and gives context to
> >> the rest of
> >>>> the draft and clarifies the difference in scope between
> >> section 508
> >>>> (procurement) and section 255 guidelines (design and
> manufacture).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> b. The Task Force agreed to recommend to the TEITAC the
> >> following in
> >>>> /Section 1194.2 Application:/
> >>>>
> >>>> . Add a subheading, "Section 508"/,/ at the
> >> beginning of this
> >>>> section to denote the current provisions are for Section
> >> 508 purposes.
> >>>> . Add a second section, "Section 255", followed by the
> >>>> language currently entitled Version 4 and Version 5. This
> >> language is
> >>>> from the current 255 guidelines modified to include
> interconnected
> >>>> VOIP. The Application section would then have two
> >> subsections, one
> >>>> generally describing the obligations under section 508 and
> >> the other
> >>>> generally describing the obligations under 255.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> 3. Technical Provisions
> >>>>
> >>>> / /
> >>>>
> >>>> a./ Accessibility Configuration/ (previously in 1.2 A
> of General
> >>>> Technical Requirements, now in Subpart D, 5.2.3 2-C.)
> >>>>
> >>>> / /
> >>>>
> >>>> . The Task Force noted that the provision changed
> >> materially
> >>>> between the October 26 draft and the November 27 draft
> when it was
> >>>> moved. The October language placed an affirmative obligation on
> >>>> agencies to activate features and configure products to be
> >> accessible.
> >>>> The November draft 26 requires 2 things: 1) "Products
> >> procured must
> >>>> be capable of being configured to be accessible to and usable by
> >>>> people with disabilities while simultaneously meeting
> the products
> >>>> function."; and 2) accessibility features should not disable any
> >>>> function.
> >>>>
> >>>> . _Language in November draft._ The Task Force
> >> recommends to
> >>>> the TEITAC that the requirements in the November draft should be
> >>>> included in the 255 guidelines and should be moved into
> >> the "General
> >>>> Technical Requirements" section modified as follows:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> "Products procured must be capable of being configured to be
> >>>> accessible to [and usable by] people with disabilities while
> >>>> simultaneously meeting the product's function. The
> accessibility
> >>>> features should not disable any functions.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _Note: For purposes of Section 255, "products" are the
> >>>> telecommunications equipment, voicemail and interactive menu
> >>>> equipment, interconnected VOIP equipment and CPE covered
> >> by the FCC's
> >>>> rules implementing section 255."_
> >>>>
> >>>> .
> >>>>
> >>>> o "usable to" is bracketed, because the Task Force
> >> wanted the
> >>>> TEITAC to discuss the inclusion of usable, as defined in
> >> the November
> >>>> draft, in provisions that would apply to Section 508 as well as
> >>>> Section 255. The Task Force would like the TEITAC to
> >> discuss whether
> >>>> to leave usable to in, take it out or keep usable to for
> >> section 255 only.
> >>>> / /
> >>>>
> >>>> . _October draft language_. The Task Force also
> recommends
> >>>> that the agency obligation in the October draft should be
> >> reinstated
> >>>> and included in the "Implementation, Operation and Maintenance"
> >>>> Section modified as follows.
> >>>>
> >>>> _ _
> >>>>
> >>>> "In complying with this subpart, each [agency _or entity
> >> covered by
> >>>> section 255_] must activate accessibility features and configure
> >>>> products so that they are accessible to and usable by
> people with
> >>>> disabilities.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _Note: For section 508 the agency would have the
> obligation. For
> >>>> section 255 it is the service provider or manufacturer
> covered by
> >>>> section 255._"
> >>>>
> >>>> / /
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> <Recap of December 13 Task Force Call.doc>
> >>>>

From: Dave Michael
Date: Fri, Dec 21 2007 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: Please Read: Recap of Dec 13 call

Gregg,

Looks good

thanks

Dave

On Dec 20, 2007, at 12:29 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

> Is this easier to read and understand?
>
> Note: This provision is not intended to prevent a product feature
> that would
> allow the user to tie product functions together (e.g. turning one
> on would
> turn another off) so long as turning on an accessibility feature
> did not
> turn off other product functions by default.
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn
>> Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 1:39 PM
>> To: TEITAC Task Force
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-tf] Please Read: Recap of Dec 13 call
>>
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> Here is a first draft attempt at a note for Section D provision 2-C:
>>
>> Note: this provision is not intended to prevent product
>> functions from being tied together; turning one on can turn
>> another off so long as this can be controlled by user option,
>> and by default turning on an accessibility feature shall not
>> turn off other product functions.
>>
>>
>> If there aren't further comments on this, I'll forward this
>> on to the larger TEITAC alias.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Peter Korn
>> Accessibility Architect,
>> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>>
>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> First. let me thank you for being able to join the Task
>> Force a little
>>> late in the place of Mary Beth who is dealing with some
>> family matters
>>> of great urgency.
>>>
>>> Second, at the risk of plowing already treated ground from the last
>>> meeting, in reviewing the below, i had a question:
>>>
>>> Under the 3 - a - first bullet - 2) it states "and 2)
>> accessibility
>>> features should not disable any function." My question is,
>>> hypothetically, if a device has a voice navigation function
>> and thereby
>>> negates the need for a visual display, why not let the
>> device disable
>>> the display function to save battery life and perhaps
>> device cycles.
>>> Kind of a poor example but should illustrate the need for
>> flexibility
>>> in shutting off a function that is not needed, to keep the
>> device speed
>>> and battery life optimal for the user.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Dec 18, 2007, at 12:48 PM, BLACKLER, ELLEN (ATTSI) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Team - Below (and attached) is the recap of the Dec 13
>> call. Please
>>>> review before the Dec 20^th call.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Recap of December 13 Task Force Call*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *_ _*
>>>>
>>>> 1. The Task Force discussed the service and equipment
>> that is covered
>>>> by the FCC's Section 255 rules, and reached a general
>> understanding on
>>>> what is covered today. In addition, the Task Force agreed
>> that it was
>>>> not necessary for its work to identify the communications products
>>>> that are covered or not with great precision. Instead, the Task
>>>> Force agreed that if we could identify some examples of products
>>>> covered by Section 255 for which the technical standards would be
>>>> relevant that would be enough for the group to evaluate how the
>>>> standard should be treated for Section 255.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2. General Provisions regarding Purpose and Application of the
>>>> technical standards.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> a. The Task Force agreed to recommend to the
>> TEITAC the
>>>> inclusion of the language of the current November 27 EWG draft in
>>>> /Section 1194.1 Purpose, /describing the 255 related
>> purpose of the
>>>> guidelines. This language closely tracks the current
>> rules regarding
>>>> the coverage of the section 255 rules and gives context to
>> the rest of
>>>> the draft and clarifies the difference in scope between
>> section 508
>>>> (procurement) and section 255 guidelines (design and manufacture).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> b. The Task Force agreed to recommend to the TEITAC the
>> following in
>>>> /Section 1194.2 Application:/
>>>>
>>>> . Add a subheading, "Section 508"/,/ at the
>> beginning of this
>>>> section to denote the current provisions are for Section
>> 508 purposes.
>>>>
>>>> . Add a second section, "Section 255", followed by the
>>>> language currently entitled Version 4 and Version 5. This
>> language is
>>>> from the current 255 guidelines modified to include interconnected
>>>> VOIP. The Application section would then have two
>> subsections, one
>>>> generally describing the obligations under section 508 and
>> the other
>>>> generally describing the obligations under 255.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 3. Technical Provisions
>>>>
>>>> / /
>>>>
>>>> a./ Accessibility Configuration/ (previously in 1.2 A of General
>>>> Technical Requirements, now in Subpart D, 5.2.3 2-C.)
>>>>
>>>> / /
>>>>
>>>> . The Task Force noted that the provision changed
>> materially
>>>> between the October 26 draft and the November 27 draft when it was
>>>> moved. The October language placed an affirmative obligation on
>>>> agencies to activate features and configure products to be
>> accessible.
>>>> The November draft 26 requires 2 things: 1) "Products
>> procured must
>>>> be capable of being configured to be accessible to and usable by
>>>> people with disabilities while simultaneously meeting the products
>>>> function."; and 2) accessibility features should not disable any
>>>> function.
>>>>
>>>> . _Language in November draft._ The Task Force
>> recommends to
>>>> the TEITAC that the requirements in the November draft should be
>>>> included in the 255 guidelines and should be moved into
>> the "General
>>>> Technical Requirements" section modified as follows:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Products procured must be capable of being configured to be
>>>> accessible to [and usable by] people with disabilities while
>>>> simultaneously meeting the product's function. The accessibility
>>>> features should not disable any functions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _Note: For purposes of Section 255, "products" are the
>>>> telecommunications equipment, voicemail and interactive menu
>>>> equipment, interconnected VOIP equipment and CPE covered
>> by the FCC's
>>>> rules implementing section 255."_
>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
>>>> o "usable to" is bracketed, because the Task Force
>> wanted the
>>>> TEITAC to discuss the inclusion of usable, as defined in
>> the November
>>>> draft, in provisions that would apply to Section 508 as well as
>>>> Section 255. The Task Force would like the TEITAC to
>> discuss whether
>>>> to leave usable to in, take it out or keep usable to for
>> section 255 only.
>>>>
>>>> / /
>>>>
>>>> . _October draft language_. The Task Force also recommends
>>>> that the agency obligation in the October draft should be
>> reinstated
>>>> and included in the "Implementation, Operation and Maintenance"
>>>> Section modified as follows.
>>>>
>>>> _ _
>>>>
>>>> "In complying with this subpart, each [agency _or entity
>> covered by
>>>> section 255_] must activate accessibility features and configure
>>>> products so that they are accessible to and usable by people with
>>>> disabilities.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _Note: For section 508 the agency would have the obligation. For
>>>> section 255 it is the service provider or manufacturer covered by
>>>> section 255._"
>>>>
>>>> / /
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <Recap of December 13 Task Force Call.doc>
>>>>