Thread Subject: Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should beCovered

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: David Wysocki
Date: Fri, Nov 17 2006 12:35 PM
Subject: Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should beCovered

Greetings - Based on our sub-committee meeting today, addressing the
larger concerns raised at the full committee meeting last week in DC, we
find ourselves in need of identifying what specific hardware should be
addressed by this subcommittee and in what ways do we interface with
other subcommittees. This is especially important as more cross-over
and changing roles occur among existing and newer technology (e.g.,
PDA/Phone combos [Blackberries, Treos etc.], handhelds, smart phones,
programmable LCD projectors with memory chip and/or network capacity,
etc.). Additional concern rises as these technologies become more the
norm and common method to perform essential job duties, such as
Blackberries. Terry Weaver (GSA) raised another concern explaining
that training the public is part of the federal government's role and
considerations of how the training is accessed (Podcasts, through
handhelds, etc.) becomes an issue for 508 accessibility as well.



So, our sub-committee is being asked to consider what should be included
under "hardware", keeping factors in mind such as:

* What broader-based and multi-function technology is currently
part of IT that wasn't existent or playing as big of a role during the
previous 508 writing?
* Based on the broader roles of previously single-role hardware,
what can we expect to have to address with this 508 refresh assuring we
build a robust coverage with decent applicability until the next
refresh?
* What's current, what's common, and what can we expect to be so
in the not-too-distant future?
* Is the hardware considered an open or closed system, or
partially open?



As we chime in with what we think should or should not be covered, and
why, please also consider adding to the above initial list of
considerations. Regards - David



David J. Wysocki, MS, OTR, ATP

Assistant Vice President,

Workforce Development / Assistive Technology

Easter Seals National Office

230 W. Monroe St., Suite 1800

Chicago, IL 60606

Direct Line: 312-551-7175

Receptionist: 312-726-6200

Fax: 312-726-1494

TTY: 312-726-4258

Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >



Be an angel of change. You can change the lives of people with
disabilities.

Earn your wings at www.easterseals.com <http://www.easterseals.com/>

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Mon, Nov 20 2006 7:10 AM
Subject: Re: Identifyiing SpecificHardware that Should beCovered

Sorry for the cross-posting, for all you hard chargers who are on so many
subcommittees....

TEITAC has four subcommittee that directly address hardware:
Desktop/Portable, Telecom, Self-contained/Closed, and General Interface.

We could decide to assign all Hardware issues to Desktop/Portable and
re-name it Hardware. This would give that subcommittee more work, but at
least everything hardware would be under one roof. Part of the
re-assignment could include 1194.23(k)1-4, the "mechanical control" items
now in Telecom, but repeated in several other categories in the current 508.
Alternately, 1194.23(k)1-4 could be assigned to General Interface. Right
now General Interface is only identifying which Standards go across several
product categories, including 1194.23(k)1-4, but has no forward-looking
assignment of its own.

The other issue staring us in the face is the notion of
self-contained/closed systems: is this really a category of products, or a
characteristic of some hardware?

I'd like to see a good dialog on these 3 questions, with a resolution so
that we can move forward soon without gaps or overlaps in our work:

1. Do we create a Hardware subcommittee out of Desktop/Portable?
2. If so, do we assign the mechanical control items to Hardware or General
Interface?
3. Is "self-contained/closed" a category or a hardware characteristic?


***********
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
skype jimtobias
www.inclusive.com





_____

From: David Wysocki [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 2:32 PM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
Subject: [teitac-hardware] Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should
beCovered



Greetings - Based on our sub-committee meeting today, addressing the larger
concerns raised at the full committee meeting last week in DC, we find
ourselves in need of identifying what specific hardware should be addressed
by this subcommittee and in what ways do we interface with other
subcommittees. This is especially important as more cross-over and changing
roles occur among existing and newer technology (e.g., PDA/Phone combos
[Blackberries, Treos etc.], handhelds, smart phones, programmable LCD
projectors with memory chip and/or network capacity, etc.). Additional
concern rises as these technologies become more the norm and common method
to perform essential job duties, such as Blackberries. Terry Weaver (GSA)
raised another concern explaining that training the public is part of the
federal government's role and considerations of how the training is accessed
(Podcasts, through handhelds, etc.) becomes an issue for 508 accessibility
as well.



So, our sub-committee is being asked to consider what should be included
under "hardware", keeping factors in mind such as:

* What broader-based and multi-function technology is currently part
of IT that wasn't existent or playing as big of a role during the previous
508 writing?

* Based on the broader roles of previously single-role hardware, what
can we expect to have to address with this 508 refresh assuring we build a
robust coverage with decent applicability until the next refresh?

* What's current, what's common, and what can we expect to be so in
the not-too-distant future?

* Is the hardware considered an open or closed system, or partially
open?



As we chime in with what we think should or should not be covered, and why,
please also consider adding to the above initial list of considerations.
Regards - David



David J. Wysocki, MS, OTR, ATP

Assistant Vice President,

Workforce Development / Assistive Technology

Easter Seals National Office

230 W. Monroe St., Suite 1800

Chicago, IL 60606

Direct Line: 312-551-7175

Receptionist: 312-726-6200

Fax: 312-726-1494

TTY: 312-726-4258

Email: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =



Be an angel of change. You can change the lives of people with
disabilities.

Earn your wings at <http://www.easterseals.com/> www.easterseals.com

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Mon, Nov 20 2006 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: Identifyiing Specific Hardware that ShouldbeCovered

Sorry for the cross-posting, for all you hard chargers who are on so many
subcommittees....

TEITAC has four subcommittee that directly address hardware:
Desktop/Portable, Telecom, Self-contained/Closed, and General Interface.

We could decide to assign all Hardware issues to Desktop/Portable and
re-name it Hardware. This would give that subcommittee more work, but at
least everything hardware would be under one roof. Part of the
re-assignment could include 1194.23(k)1-4, the "mechanical control" items
now in Telecom, but repeated in several other categories in the current 508.
Alternately, 1194.23(k)1-4 could be assigned to General Interface. Right
now General Interface is only identifying which Standards go across several
product categories, including 1194.23(k)1-4, but has no forward-looking
assignment of its own.

The other issue staring us in the face is the notion of
self-contained/closed systems: is this really a category of products, or a
characteristic of some hardware?

I'd like to see a good dialog on these 3 questions, with a resolution so
that we can move forward soon without gaps or overlaps in our work:

1. Do we create a Hardware subcommittee out of Desktop/Portable?
2. If so, do we assign the mechanical control items to Hardware or General
Interface?
3. Is "self-contained/closed" a category or a hardware characteristic?


***********
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
skype jimtobias
www.inclusive.com





_____

From: David Wysocki [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 2:32 PM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
Subject: [teitac-hardware] Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should
beCovered



Greetings - Based on our sub-committee meeting today, addressing the larger
concerns raised at the full committee meeting last week in DC, we find
ourselves in need of identifying what specific hardware should be addressed
by this subcommittee and in what ways do we interface with other
subcommittees. This is especially important as more cross-over and changing
roles occur among existing and newer technology (e.g., PDA/Phone combos
[Blackberries, Treos etc.], handhelds, smart phones, programmable LCD
projectors with memory chip and/or network capacity, etc.). Additional
concern rises as these technologies become more the norm and common method
to perform essential job duties, such as Blackberries. Terry Weaver (GSA)
raised another concern explaining that training the public is part of the
federal government's role and considerations of how the training is accessed
(Podcasts, through handhelds, etc.) becomes an issue for 508 accessibility
as well.



So, our sub-committee is being asked to consider what should be included
under "hardware", keeping factors in mind such as:

* What broader-based and multi-function technology is currently part
of IT that wasn't existent or playing as big of a role during the previous
508 writing?

* Based on the broader roles of previously single-role hardware, what
can we expect to have to address with this 508 refresh assuring we build a
robust coverage with decent applicability until the next refresh?

* What's current, what's common, and what can we expect to be so in
the not-too-distant future?

* Is the hardware considered an open or closed system, or partially
open?



As we chime in with what we think should or should not be covered, and why,
please also consider adding to the above initial list of considerations.
Regards - David



David J. Wysocki, MS, OTR, ATP

Assistant Vice President,

Workforce Development / Assistive Technology

Easter Seals National Office

230 W. Monroe St., Suite 1800

Chicago, IL 60606

Direct Line: 312-551-7175

Receptionist: 312-726-6200

Fax: 312-726-1494

TTY: 312-726-4258

Email: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =



Be an angel of change. You can change the lives of people with
disabilities.

Earn your wings at <http://www.easterseals.com/> www.easterseals.com

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Mon, Nov 20 2006 7:20 AM
Subject: Re: Identifyiing SpecificHardware that Should beCovered

Sorry for the cross-posting, for all you hard chargers who are on so many
subcommittees....

TEITAC has four subcommittee that directly address hardware:
Desktop/Portable, Telecom, Self-contained/Closed, and General Interface.

We could decide to assign all Hardware issues to Desktop/Portable and
re-name it Hardware. This would give that subcommittee more work, but at
least everything hardware would be under one roof. Part of the
re-assignment could include 1194.23(k)1-4, the "mechanical control" items
now in Telecom, but repeated in several other categories in the current 508.
Alternately, 1194.23(k)1-4 could be assigned to General Interface. Right
now General Interface is only identifying which Standards go across several
product categories, including 1194.23(k)1-4, but has no forward-looking
assignment of its own.

The other issue staring us in the face is the notion of
self-contained/closed systems: is this really a category of products, or a
characteristic of some hardware?

I'd like to see a good dialog on these 3 questions, with a resolution so
that we can move forward soon without gaps or overlaps in our work:

1. Do we create a Hardware subcommittee out of Desktop/Portable?
2. If so, do we assign the mechanical control items to Hardware or General
Interface?
3. Is "self-contained/closed" a category or a hardware characteristic?


***********
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
skype jimtobias
www.inclusive.com





_____

From: David Wysocki [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 2:32 PM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
Subject: [teitac-hardware] Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should
beCovered



Greetings - Based on our sub-committee meeting today, addressing the larger
concerns raised at the full committee meeting last week in DC, we find
ourselves in need of identifying what specific hardware should be addressed
by this subcommittee and in what ways do we interface with other
subcommittees. This is especially important as more cross-over and changing
roles occur among existing and newer technology (e.g., PDA/Phone combos
[Blackberries, Treos etc.], handhelds, smart phones, programmable LCD
projectors with memory chip and/or network capacity, etc.). Additional
concern rises as these technologies become more the norm and common method
to perform essential job duties, such as Blackberries. Terry Weaver (GSA)
raised another concern explaining that training the public is part of the
federal government's role and considerations of how the training is accessed
(Podcasts, through handhelds, etc.) becomes an issue for 508 accessibility
as well.



So, our sub-committee is being asked to consider what should be included
under "hardware", keeping factors in mind such as:

* What broader-based and multi-function technology is currently part
of IT that wasn't existent or playing as big of a role during the previous
508 writing?

* Based on the broader roles of previously single-role hardware, what
can we expect to have to address with this 508 refresh assuring we build a
robust coverage with decent applicability until the next refresh?

* What's current, what's common, and what can we expect to be so in
the not-too-distant future?

* Is the hardware considered an open or closed system, or partially
open?



As we chime in with what we think should or should not be covered, and why,
please also consider adding to the above initial list of considerations.
Regards - David



David J. Wysocki, MS, OTR, ATP

Assistant Vice President,

Workforce Development / Assistive Technology

Easter Seals National Office

230 W. Monroe St., Suite 1800

Chicago, IL 60606

Direct Line: 312-551-7175

Receptionist: 312-726-6200

Fax: 312-726-1494

TTY: 312-726-4258

Email: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =



Be an angel of change. You can change the lives of people with
disabilities.

Earn your wings at <http://www.easterseals.com/> www.easterseals.com

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Mon, Nov 20 2006 7:25 AM
Subject: Re: Identifyiing SpecificHardware that Should beCovered

Sorry for the cross-posting, for all you hard chargers who are on so many
subcommittees....

TEITAC has four subcommittee that directly address hardware:
Desktop/Portable, Telecom, Self-contained/Closed, and General Interface.

We could decide to assign all Hardware issues to Desktop/Portable and
re-name it Hardware. This would give that subcommittee more work, but at
least everything hardware would be under one roof. Part of the
re-assignment could include 1194.23(k)1-4, the "mechanical control" items
now in Telecom, but repeated in several other categories in the current 508.
Alternately, 1194.23(k)1-4 could be assigned to General Interface. Right
now General Interface is only identifying which Standards go across several
product categories, including 1194.23(k)1-4, but has no forward-looking
assignment of its own.

The other issue staring us in the face is the notion of
self-contained/closed systems: is this really a category of products, or a
characteristic of some hardware?

I'd like to see a good dialog on these 3 questions, with a resolution so
that we can move forward soon without gaps or overlaps in our work:

1. Do we create a Hardware subcommittee out of Desktop/Portable?
2. If so, do we assign the mechanical control items to Hardware or General
Interface?
3. Is "self-contained/closed" a category or a hardware characteristic?


***********
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
skype jimtobias
www.inclusive.com





_____

From: David Wysocki [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 2:32 PM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
Subject: [teitac-hardware] Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should
beCovered



Greetings - Based on our sub-committee meeting today, addressing the larger
concerns raised at the full committee meeting last week in DC, we find
ourselves in need of identifying what specific hardware should be addressed
by this subcommittee and in what ways do we interface with other
subcommittees. This is especially important as more cross-over and changing
roles occur among existing and newer technology (e.g., PDA/Phone combos
[Blackberries, Treos etc.], handhelds, smart phones, programmable LCD
projectors with memory chip and/or network capacity, etc.). Additional
concern rises as these technologies become more the norm and common method
to perform essential job duties, such as Blackberries. Terry Weaver (GSA)
raised another concern explaining that training the public is part of the
federal government's role and considerations of how the training is accessed
(Podcasts, through handhelds, etc.) becomes an issue for 508 accessibility
as well.



So, our sub-committee is being asked to consider what should be included
under "hardware", keeping factors in mind such as:

* What broader-based and multi-function technology is currently part
of IT that wasn't existent or playing as big of a role during the previous
508 writing?

* Based on the broader roles of previously single-role hardware, what
can we expect to have to address with this 508 refresh assuring we build a
robust coverage with decent applicability until the next refresh?

* What's current, what's common, and what can we expect to be so in
the not-too-distant future?

* Is the hardware considered an open or closed system, or partially
open?



As we chime in with what we think should or should not be covered, and why,
please also consider adding to the above initial list of considerations.
Regards - David



David J. Wysocki, MS, OTR, ATP

Assistant Vice President,

Workforce Development / Assistive Technology

Easter Seals National Office

230 W. Monroe St., Suite 1800

Chicago, IL 60606

Direct Line: 312-551-7175

Receptionist: 312-726-6200

Fax: 312-726-1494

TTY: 312-726-4258

Email: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =



Be an angel of change. You can change the lives of people with
disabilities.

Earn your wings at <http://www.easterseals.com/> www.easterseals.com

From: Debbie Cook
Date: Mon, Nov 20 2006 7:50 AM
Subject: Re: Identifyiing SpecificHardwarethat Should beCovered

There is certainly overlap between the closed products and the hardware
since both contain hardware. But the closed products also contain software
and this aspect is what generally poses the access issue. It is my
experience that the hardware regs are interpreted as meaning PC's and
peripherals and that closed is something not connected to a PC. So while I
might ultimately be very open to combining the categories to resolve the
overlap, I'm pretty concerned that the software aspects must still be
considered. Alternatively, we could consider all hardware together and move
the software aspects of closed products into the web/software construct, but
perhaps this is better handled in the Editing committee rather than trying
to incorporate more over there right now.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Cc: "'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC self contained/closed products
subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC General Interface
Accessibility Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 6:04 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] [teitac-hardware] Identifyiing SpecificHardware
that Should beCovered


Sorry for the cross-posting, for all you hard chargers who are on so many
subcommittees....

TEITAC has four subcommittee that directly address hardware:
Desktop/Portable, Telecom, Self-contained/Closed, and General Interface.

We could decide to assign all Hardware issues to Desktop/Portable and
re-name it Hardware. This would give that subcommittee more work, but at
least everything hardware would be under one roof. Part of the
re-assignment could include 1194.23(k)1-4, the "mechanical control" items
now in Telecom, but repeated in several other categories in the current 508.
Alternately, 1194.23(k)1-4 could be assigned to General Interface. Right
now General Interface is only identifying which Standards go across several
product categories, including 1194.23(k)1-4, but has no forward-looking
assignment of its own.

The other issue staring us in the face is the notion of
self-contained/closed systems: is this really a category of products, or a
characteristic of some hardware?

I'd like to see a good dialog on these 3 questions, with a resolution so
that we can move forward soon without gaps or overlaps in our work:

1. Do we create a Hardware subcommittee out of Desktop/Portable?
2. If so, do we assign the mechanical control items to Hardware or General
Interface?
3. Is "self-contained/closed" a category or a hardware characteristic?


***********
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
skype jimtobias
www.inclusive.com





_____

From: David Wysocki [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 2:32 PM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
Subject: [teitac-hardware] Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should
beCovered



Greetings - Based on our sub-committee meeting today, addressing the larger
concerns raised at the full committee meeting last week in DC, we find
ourselves in need of identifying what specific hardware should be addressed
by this subcommittee and in what ways do we interface with other
subcommittees. This is especially important as more cross-over and changing
roles occur among existing and newer technology (e.g., PDA/Phone combos
[Blackberries, Treos etc.], handhelds, smart phones, programmable LCD
projectors with memory chip and/or network capacity, etc.). Additional
concern rises as these technologies become more the norm and common method
to perform essential job duties, such as Blackberries. Terry Weaver (GSA)
raised another concern explaining that training the public is part of the
federal government's role and considerations of how the training is accessed
(Podcasts, through handhelds, etc.) becomes an issue for 508 accessibility
as well.



So, our sub-committee is being asked to consider what should be included
under "hardware", keeping factors in mind such as:

* What broader-based and multi-function technology is currently part
of IT that wasn't existent or playing as big of a role during the previous
508 writing?

* Based on the broader roles of previously single-role hardware, what
can we expect to have to address with this 508 refresh assuring we build a
robust coverage with decent applicability until the next refresh?

* What's current, what's common, and what can we expect to be so in
the not-too-distant future?

* Is the hardware considered an open or closed system, or partially
open?



As we chime in with what we think should or should not be covered, and why,
please also consider adding to the above initial list of considerations.
Regards - David



David J. Wysocki, MS, OTR, ATP

Assistant Vice President,

Workforce Development / Assistive Technology

Easter Seals National Office

230 W. Monroe St., Suite 1800

Chicago, IL 60606

Direct Line: 312-551-7175

Receptionist: 312-726-6200

Fax: 312-726-1494

TTY: 312-726-4258

Email: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =



Be an angel of change. You can change the lives of people with
disabilities.

Earn your wings at <http://www.easterseals.com/> www.easterseals.com






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

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Mon, Nov 20 2006 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should beCovered

1. Do we create a Hardware subcommittee out of Desktop/Portable?

- I would leave it as desktop/portable



2. If so, do we assign the mechanical control items to Hardware or General
Interface?

-this was one of the "General" assignments (things that appeared
across categories) and is in the General workscope.



3. Is "self-contained/closed" a category or a hardware characteristic?

- I think it is a characteristic








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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
Sent: Monday, November 20, 2006 8:04 AM
To: 'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'
Cc: 'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC self contained/closed
products subcommittee'; 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility
Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] [teitac-hardware] Identifyiing Specific
Hardware that Should beCovered

Sorry for the cross-posting, for all you hard chargers who are on so many
subcommittees....



TEITAC has four subcommittee that directly address hardware:
Desktop/Portable, Telecom, Self-contained/Closed, and General Interface.



We could decide to assign all Hardware issues to Desktop/Portable and
re-name it Hardware. This would give that subcommittee more work, but at
least everything hardware would be under one roof. Part of the
re-assignment could include 1194.23(k)1-4, the "mechanical control" items
now in Telecom, but repeated in several other categories in the current 508.
Alternately, 1194.23(k)1-4 could be assigned to General Interface. Right
now General Interface is only identifying which Standards go across several
product categories, including 1194.23(k)1-4, but has no forward-looking
assignment of its own.



The other issue staring us in the face is the notion of
self-contained/closed systems: is this really a category of products, or a
characteristic of some hardware?



I'd like to see a good dialog on these 3 questions, with a resolution so
that we can move forward soon without gaps or overlaps in our work:



1. Do we create a Hardware subcommittee out of Desktop/Portable?

2. If so, do we assign the mechanical control items to Hardware or General
Interface?

3. Is "self-contained/closed" a category or a hardware characteristic?



***********
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1.732.441.0831 v/tty
skype jimtobias
www.inclusive.com






_____


From: David Wysocki [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 2:32 PM
To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
Subject: [teitac-hardware] Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should
beCovered

Greetings - Based on our sub-committee meeting today, addressing the larger
concerns raised at the full committee meeting last week in DC, we find
ourselves in need of identifying what specific hardware should be addressed
by this subcommittee and in what ways do we interface with other
subcommittees. This is especially important as more cross-over and changing
roles occur among existing and newer technology (e.g., PDA/Phone combos
[Blackberries, Treos etc.], handhelds, smart phones, programmable LCD
projectors with memory chip and/or network capacity, etc.). Additional
concern rises as these technologies become more the norm and common method
to perform essential job duties, such as Blackberries. Terry Weaver (GSA)
raised another concern explaining that training the public is part of the
federal government's role and considerations of how the training is accessed
(Podcasts, through handhelds, etc.) becomes an issue for 508 accessibility
as well.



So, our sub-committee is being asked to consider what should be included
under "hardware", keeping factors in mind such as:

* What broader-based and multi-function technology is currently part
of IT that wasn't existent or playing as big of a role during the previous
508 writing?
* Based on the broader roles of previously single-role hardware, what
can we expect to have to address with this 508 refresh assuring we build a
robust coverage with decent applicability until the next refresh?
* What's current, what's common, and what can we expect to be so in
the not-too-distant future?
* Is the hardware considered an open or closed system, or partially
open?



As we chime in with what we think should or should not be covered, and why,
please also consider adding to the above initial list of considerations.
Regards - David



David J. Wysocki, MS, OTR, ATP

Assistant Vice President,

Workforce Development / Assistive Technology

Easter Seals National Office

230 W. Monroe St., Suite 1800

Chicago, IL 60606

Direct Line: 312-551-7175

Receptionist: 312-726-6200

Fax: 312-726-1494

TTY: 312-726-4258

Email: <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = > = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =



Be an angel of change. You can change the lives of people with
disabilities.

Earn your wings at <http://www.easterseals.com/> www.easterseals.com

From: Randy Marsden
Date: Mon, Nov 20 2006 3:40 PM
Subject: Re: Identifyiing SpecificHardware that Should beCovered

The term ³Desktops and Portables² to me intuitively means desktop computers
and laptop computers. Does ³portables² adequately describe things like
PDA¹s, Smartphones, UMPC¹s, MP3 players, portable video players, etc? I
don¹t think so.

Also, things like stand-alone LCD projectors have been mentioned. Those
definitely don¹t fit into the Desktop and Portables category.

In regards to telecom, with the convergence of mobile phones / pda¹s / MP3
players, those lines are blurring. Not to mention Skype ­ is that a phone
or a computer? The answer is yes.

Finally, I¹m hoping we can work toward the day when few or no products are
considered ³closed² to assistive technology. In that regard, I agree that
self-contained/closed is a characteristic, not a category.

As far our our sub-committees go, I like the idea of combining into a single
sub-committee called ³Hardware². (Less back-and-forth between
sub-committees, and fewer sub-committee meetings! :-) ).


-Randy
>
> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Reply-To: "TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:04:05 -0500
> To: "'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Cc: "'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC self contained/closed products
> subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC General Interface
> Accessibility Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should
> beCovered
>

> Sorry for the cross-posting, for all you hard chargers who are on so many
> subcommittees....
>
> TEITAC has four subcommittee that directly address hardware:
> Desktop/Portable, Telecom, Self-contained/Closed, and General Interface.
>
> We could decide to assign all Hardware issues to Desktop/Portable and re-name
> it Hardware. This would give that subcommittee more work, but at least
> everything hardware would be under one roof. Part of the re-assignment could
> include 1194.23(k)1-4, the "mechanical control" items now in Telecom, but
> repeated in several other categories in the current 508. Alternately,
> 1194.23(k)1-4 could be assigned to General Interface. Right now General
> Interface is only identifying which Standards go across several product
> categories, including 1194.23(k)1-4, but has no forward-looking assignment of
> its own.
>
> The other issue staring us in the face is the notion of self-contained/closed
> systems: is this really a category of products, or a characteristic of some
> hardware?
>
> I'd like to see a good dialog on these 3 questions, with a resolution so that
> we can move forward soon without gaps or overlaps in our work:
>
> 1. Do we create a Hardware subcommittee out of Desktop/Portable?
> 2. If so, do we assign the mechanical control items to Hardware or General
> Interface?
> 3. Is "self-contained/closed" a category or a hardware characteristic?
>
> ***********
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> skype jimtobias
> www.inclusive.com
>
>
>>
>> From: David Wysocki [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 2:32 PM
>> To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
>> Subject: [teitac-hardware] Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should
>> beCovered
>>
>> Greetings ­ Based on our sub-committee meeting today, addressing the larger
>> concerns raised at the full committee meeting last week in DC, we find
>> ourselves in need of identifying what specific hardware should be addressed
>> by this subcommittee and in what ways do we interface with other
>> subcommittees. This is especially important as more cross-over and changing
>> roles occur among existing and newer technology (e.g., PDA/Phone combos
>> [Blackberries, Treos etc.], handhelds, smart phones, programmable LCD
>> projectors with memory chip and/or network capacity, etc.). Additional
>> concern rises as these technologies become more the norm and common method
>> to perform essential job duties, such as Blackberries. Terry Weaver (GSA)
>> raised another concern explaining that training the public is part of the
>> federal government¹s role and considerations of how the training is accessed
>> (Podcasts, through handhelds, etc.) becomes an issue for 508 accessibility as
>> well.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, our sub-committee is being asked to consider what should be included
>> under ³hardware², keeping factors in mind such as:
>> * What broader-based and multi-function technology is currently part of IT
>> that wasn¹t existent or playing as big of a role during the previous 508
>> writing?
>> * Based on the broader roles of previously single-role hardware, what can we
>> expect to have to address with this 508 refresh assuring we build a robust
>> coverage with decent applicability until the next refresh?
>> * What¹s current, what¹s common, and what can we expect to be so in the
>> not-too-distant future?
>> * Is the hardware considered an open or closed system, or partially open?
>>
>>
>> As we chime in with what we think should or should not be covered, and why,
>> please also consider adding to the above initial list of considerations.
>> Regards - David
>>
>>
>>
>> David J. Wysocki, MS, OTR, ATP
>>
>> Assistant Vice President,
>>
>> Workforce Development / Assistive Technology
>>
>> Easter Seals National Office
>>
>> 230 W. Monroe St., Suite 1800
>>
>> Chicago, IL 60606
>>
>> Direct Line: 312-551-7175
>>
>> Receptionist: 312-726-6200
>>
>> Fax: 312-726-1494
>>
>> TTY: 312-726-4258
>>
>> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>
>>
>>
>> Be an angel of change. You can change the lives of people with disabilities.
>>
>> Earn your wings at www.easterseals.com <http://www.easterseals.com/>
>>
>>
>
>
>

From: Randy Marsden
Date: Mon, Nov 20 2006 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: Identifyiing Specific Hardware thatShould beCovered

The term ³Desktops and Portables² to me intuitively means desktop computers
and laptop computers. Does ³portables² adequately describe things like
PDA¹s, Smartphones, UMPC¹s, MP3 players, portable video players, etc? I
don¹t think so.

Also, things like stand-alone LCD projectors have been mentioned. Those
definitely don¹t fit into the Desktop and Portables category.

In regards to telecom, with the convergence of mobile phones / pda¹s / MP3
players, those lines are blurring. Not to mention Skype ­ is that a phone
or a computer? The answer is yes.

Finally, I¹m hoping we can work toward the day when few or no products are
considered ³closed² to assistive technology. In that regard, I agree that
self-contained/closed is a characteristic, not a category.

As far our our sub-committees go, I like the idea of combining into a single
sub-committee called ³Hardware². (Less back-and-forth between
sub-committees, and fewer sub-committee meetings! :-) ).


-Randy
>
> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Reply-To: "TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:04:05 -0500
> To: "'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Cc: "'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC self contained/closed products
> subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC General Interface
> Accessibility Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should
> beCovered
>

> Sorry for the cross-posting, for all you hard chargers who are on so many
> subcommittees....
>
> TEITAC has four subcommittee that directly address hardware:
> Desktop/Portable, Telecom, Self-contained/Closed, and General Interface.
>
> We could decide to assign all Hardware issues to Desktop/Portable and re-name
> it Hardware. This would give that subcommittee more work, but at least
> everything hardware would be under one roof. Part of the re-assignment could
> include 1194.23(k)1-4, the "mechanical control" items now in Telecom, but
> repeated in several other categories in the current 508. Alternately,
> 1194.23(k)1-4 could be assigned to General Interface. Right now General
> Interface is only identifying which Standards go across several product
> categories, including 1194.23(k)1-4, but has no forward-looking assignment of
> its own.
>
> The other issue staring us in the face is the notion of self-contained/closed
> systems: is this really a category of products, or a characteristic of some
> hardware?
>
> I'd like to see a good dialog on these 3 questions, with a resolution so that
> we can move forward soon without gaps or overlaps in our work:
>
> 1. Do we create a Hardware subcommittee out of Desktop/Portable?
> 2. If so, do we assign the mechanical control items to Hardware or General
> Interface?
> 3. Is "self-contained/closed" a category or a hardware characteristic?
>
> ***********
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> skype jimtobias
> www.inclusive.com
>
>
>>
>> From: David Wysocki [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 2:32 PM
>> To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
>> Subject: [teitac-hardware] Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should
>> beCovered
>>
>> Greetings ­ Based on our sub-committee meeting today, addressing the larger
>> concerns raised at the full committee meeting last week in DC, we find
>> ourselves in need of identifying what specific hardware should be addressed
>> by this subcommittee and in what ways do we interface with other
>> subcommittees. This is especially important as more cross-over and changing
>> roles occur among existing and newer technology (e.g., PDA/Phone combos
>> [Blackberries, Treos etc.], handhelds, smart phones, programmable LCD
>> projectors with memory chip and/or network capacity, etc.). Additional
>> concern rises as these technologies become more the norm and common method
>> to perform essential job duties, such as Blackberries. Terry Weaver (GSA)
>> raised another concern explaining that training the public is part of the
>> federal government¹s role and considerations of how the training is accessed
>> (Podcasts, through handhelds, etc.) becomes an issue for 508 accessibility as
>> well.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, our sub-committee is being asked to consider what should be included
>> under ³hardware², keeping factors in mind such as:
>> * What broader-based and multi-function technology is currently part of IT
>> that wasn¹t existent or playing as big of a role during the previous 508
>> writing?
>> * Based on the broader roles of previously single-role hardware, what can we
>> expect to have to address with this 508 refresh assuring we build a robust
>> coverage with decent applicability until the next refresh?
>> * What¹s current, what¹s common, and what can we expect to be so in the
>> not-too-distant future?
>> * Is the hardware considered an open or closed system, or partially open?
>>
>>
>> As we chime in with what we think should or should not be covered, and why,
>> please also consider adding to the above initial list of considerations.
>> Regards - David
>>
>>
>>
>> David J. Wysocki, MS, OTR, ATP
>>
>> Assistant Vice President,
>>
>> Workforce Development / Assistive Technology
>>
>> Easter Seals National Office
>>
>> 230 W. Monroe St., Suite 1800
>>
>> Chicago, IL 60606
>>
>> Direct Line: 312-551-7175
>>
>> Receptionist: 312-726-6200
>>
>> Fax: 312-726-1494
>>
>> TTY: 312-726-4258
>>
>> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>
>>
>>
>> Be an angel of change. You can change the lives of people with disabilities.
>>
>> Earn your wings at www.easterseals.com <http://www.easterseals.com/>
>>
>>
>
>
>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Mon, Nov 20 2006 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: Identifyiing Specific HardwarethatShould beCovered

Re: [teitac-hardware] Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should beCovered
Hi,

Does anyone know why I'm seeing all the superscripts in this message?

Thanks!

The term ³Desktops and Portables² to me intuitively means desktop computers
and laptop computers. Does ³portables² adequately describe things like
PDA¹s, Smartphones, UMPC¹s, MP3 players, portable video players, etc? I
don¹t think so.

Also, things like stand-alone LCD projectors have been mentioned. Those
definitely don¹t fit into the Desktop and Portables category.

In regards to telecom, with the convergence of mobile phones / pda¹s / MP3
players, those lines are blurring. Not to mention Skype ­ is that a phone
or a computer? The answer is yes.

Finally, I¹m hoping we can work toward the day when few or no products are
considered ³closed² to assistive technology. In that regard, I agree that
self-contained/closed is a characteristic, not a category.

As far our our sub-committees go, I like the idea of combining into a single
sub-committee called ³Hardware². (Less back-and-forth between
sub-committees, and fewer sub-committee meetings! :-) ).


-Randy
>
> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Reply-To: "TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:04:05 -0500
> To: "'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Cc: "'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC self contained/closed products
> subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC General Interface
> Accessibility Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should
> beCovered
>

> Sorry for the cross-posting, for all you hard chargers who are on so many
> subcommittees....
>
> TEITAC has four subcommittee that directly address hardware:
> Desktop/Portable, Telecom, Self-contained/Closed, and General Interface.
>
> We could decide to assign all Hardware issues to Desktop/Portable and re-name
> it Hardware. This would give that subcommittee more work, but at least
> everything hardware would be under one roof. Part of the re-assignment could
> include 1194.23(k)1-4, the "mechanical control" items now in Telecom, but
> repeated in several other categories in the current 508. Alternately,
> 1194.23(k)1-4 could be assigned to General Interface. Right now General
> Interface is only identifying which Standards go across several product
> categories, including 1194.23(k)1-4, but has no forward-looking assignment of
> its own.
>
> The other issue staring us in the face is the notion of self-contained/closed
> systems: is this really a category of products, or a characteristic of some
> hardware?
>
> I'd like to see a good dialog on these 3 questions, with a resolution so that
> we can move forward soon without gaps or overlaps in our work:
>
> 1. Do we create a Hardware subcommittee out of Desktop/Portable?
> 2. If so, do we assign the mechanical control items to Hardware or General
> Interface?
> 3. Is "self-contained/closed" a category or a hardware characteristic?
>
> ***********
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> skype jimtobias
> www.inclusive.com
>
>
>>
>> From: David Wysocki [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 2:32 PM
>> To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
>> Subject: [teitac-hardware] Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should
>> beCovered
>>
>> Greetings ­ Based on our sub-committee meeting today, addressing the larger
>> concerns raised at the full committee meeting last week in DC, we find
>> ourselves in need of identifying what specific hardware should be addressed
>> by this subcommittee and in what ways do we interface with other
>> subcommittees. This is especially important as more cross-over and changing
>> roles occur among existing and newer technology (e.g., PDA/Phone combos
>> [Blackberries, Treos etc.], handhelds, smart phones, programmable LCD
>> projectors with memory chip and/or network capacity, etc.). Additional
>> concern rises as these technologies become more the norm and common method
>> to perform essential job duties, such as Blackberries. Terry Weaver (GSA)
>> raised another concern explaining that training the public is part of the
>> federal government¹s role and considerations of how the training is accessed
>> (Podcasts, through handhelds, etc.) becomes an issue for 508 accessibility as
>> well.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, our sub-committee is being asked to consider what should be included
>> under ³hardware², keeping factors in mind such as:
>> * What broader-based and multi-function technology is currently part of IT
>> that wasn¹t existent or playing as big of a role during the previous 508
>> writing?
>> * Based on the broader roles of previously single-role hardware, what can we
>> expect to have to address with this 508 refresh assuring we build a robust
>> coverage with decent applicability until the next refresh?
>> * What¹s current, what¹s common, and what can we expect to be so in the
>> not-too-distant future?
>> * Is the hardware considered an open or closed system, or partially open?
>>
>>
>> As we chime in with what we think should or should not be covered, and why,
>> please also consider adding to the above initial list of considerations.
>> Regards - David
>>
>>
>>
>> David J. Wysocki, MS, OTR, ATP
>>
>> Assistant Vice President,
>>
>> Workforce Development / Assistive Technology
>>
>> Easter Seals National Office
>>
>> 230 W. Monroe St., Suite 1800
>>
>> Chicago, IL 60606
>>
>> Direct Line: 312-551-7175
>>
>> Receptionist: 312-726-6200
>>
>> Fax: 312-726-1494
>>
>> TTY: 312-726-4258
>>
>> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>
>>
>>
>> Be an angel of change. You can change the lives of people with disabilities.
>>
>> Earn your wings at www.easterseals.com <http://www.easterseals.com/>
>>
>>
>
>
>

From: Brett, Thomas F
Date: Mon, Nov 20 2006 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: Identifyiing SpecificHardwarethatShould beCovered

Here is something interesting. On Randy's original post I see quotation mark. However on your replied I see the superscripts 1, 2, 3. What mail client are you using?

Tom Brett

From: David Poehlman
Date: Mon, Nov 20 2006 5:00 PM
Subject: Re: Identifyiing SpecificHardwarethatShould beCovered

I used outlook express but I cheated. When I received the message,
it was the way you saw what I sent with the superscripts in it. When
I began my reply, the superscripts had dissappeared so I pasted in
the original message so that it would sho the way I received it.
Let's see how it does in Apple mail now thatt I've fired up my Mac Book.

On Nov 20, 2006, at 6:16 PM, Brett, Thomas F wrote:

Here is something interesting. On Randy's original post I see
quotation mark. However on your replied I see the superscripts 1, 2,
3. What mail client are you using?

Tom Brett

From: David Poehlman
Date: Mon, Nov 20 2006 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: Identifyiing Specific Hardware thatShould beCovered

The super scripts do not show up in Apple Mail.

From: David Poehlman
Date: Mon, Nov 20 2006 5:20 PM
Subject: Re: Identifyiing Specific Hardware thatShould beCovered

I vote +1 for a "hardware" committee as well.

From: David Wysocki
Date: Tue, Nov 21 2006 6:20 AM
Subject: Re: Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should beCovered

My intuitive interpretation was similar to Randy's, i.e., "Desktops and
Portables" = Desktops and Notebook computers. (Not that it was an
accurate intuition). Adding the term "Handhelds" then takes me into the
world of PDAs and also what are now called UMPCs (Ultra-Mobile PC).
"Handhelds" in my mind can also mean but not necessarily include
smartphones (computer and communication functions in one, including PDA
functions). But this is where it gets less definitive to me. Combining
everything into one "Hardware" group has its advantages & disadvantages
(as does everything in life - Take my Treo for example - Not as smart as
it claims to be.) Thus the issue is how many types of hardware can we
reasonably recommend distinguishable regulatory parameters on without
losing usable definitive language? One approach for the "Desktops &
Portables (and Handhelds?) group may be to identify those systems with "
Three?? Core Computing Functions", that require an input/output
interface (e.g., keyboard, mouse or GUI navigation functions, and
video/audio), e.g. 1) Front Office (e.g., word processing, spreadsheet,
database), 2) Organizing (e.g., Calendar, Contacts Book, Task Lists),
and 3) Communications (e.g, Email, Text Messaging, Phone/Telephony) with
possibly the latter (phone/telephony) only covered in this group when it
is combined with one or more of the other "Core Computing Functions".
This may allow us a manageable group that also covers the bulk of IT
hardware as it affects people with workplace and public access needs to
government IT. It may also help with a clearer delineation and
interface points with the other related subcommittees. - David



David J. Wysocki, MS, OTR, ATP

Assistant Vice President,

Workforce Development / Assistive Technology

Easter Seals National Headquarters

230 W. Monroe St., Suite 1800

Chicago, IL 60606

Direct Line: 312.551.7175

Fax: 312.726.1494

TTY: 312.726.4258

Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

Be an angel of change. You can change the lives of people with
disabilities.

Earn your wings at http://www.easterseals.com/
<http://www.easterseals.com/>

From: David Wysocki
Date: Tue, Nov 21 2006 6:25 AM
Subject: Re: Identifyiing SpecificHardware that Should be Covered

My intuitive interpretation was similar to Randy's, i.e., "Desktops and
Portables" = Desktops and Notebook computers. (Not that it was an
accurate intuition). Adding the term "Handhelds" then takes me into the
world of PDAs and also what are now called UMPCs (Ultra-Mobile PC).
"Handhelds" in my mind can also mean but not necessarily include
smartphones (computer and communication functions in one, including PDA
functions). But this is where it gets less definitive to me. Combining
everything into one "Hardware" group has its advantages & disadvantages
(as does everything in life - Take my Treo for example - Not as smart as
it claims to be.) Thus the issue is how many types of hardware can we
reasonably recommend distinguishable regulatory parameters on without
losing usable definitive language? One approach for the "Desktops &
Portables (and Handhelds?) group may be to identify those systems with "
Three?? Core Computing Functions", that require an input/output
interface (e.g., keyboard, mouse or GUI navigation functions, and
video/audio), e.g. 1) Front Office (e.g., word processing, spreadsheet,
database), 2) Organizing (e.g., Calendar, Contacts Book, Task Lists),
and 3) Communications (e.g, Email, Text Messaging, Phone/Telephony) with
possibly the latter (phone/telephony) only covered in this group when it
is combined with one or more of the other "Core Computing Functions".
This may allow us a manageable group that also covers the bulk of IT
hardware as it affects people with workplace and public access needs to
government IT. It may also help with a clearer delineation and
interface points with the other related subcommittees. - David



David J. Wysocki, MS, OTR, ATP

Assistant Vice President,

Workforce Development / Assistive Technology

Easter Seals National Headquarters

230 W. Monroe St., Suite 1800

Chicago, IL 60606

Direct Line: 312.551.7175

Fax: 312.726.1494

TTY: 312.726.4258

Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >

Be an angel of change. You can change the lives of people with
disabilities.

Earn your wings at http://www.easterseals.com/
<http://www.easterseals.com/>

From: Randy Marsden
Date: Tue, Nov 21 2006 8:30 AM
Subject: Re: Identifyiing SpecificHardware that Should beCovered

The term ³Desktops and Portables² to me intuitively means desktop computers
and laptop computers. Does ³portables² adequately describe things like
PDA¹s, Smartphones, UMPC¹s, MP3 players, portable video players, etc? I
don¹t think so.

Also, things like stand-alone LCD projectors have been mentioned. Those
definitely don¹t fit into the Desktop and Portables category.

In regards to telecom, with the convergence of mobile phones / pda¹s / MP3
players, those lines are blurring. Not to mention Skype ­ is that a phone
or a computer? The answer is yes.

Finally, I¹m hoping we can work toward the day when few or no products are
considered ³closed² to assistive technology. In that regard, I agree that
self-contained/closed is a characteristic, not a category.

As far our our sub-committees go, I like the idea of combining into a single
sub-committee called ³Hardware². (Less back-and-forth between
sub-committees, and fewer sub-committee meetings! :-) ).


-Randy
>
> From: "Jim Tobias" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Reply-To: "TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2006 09:04:05 -0500
> To: "'TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Cc: "'TEITAC Telecommunications Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC self contained/closed products
> subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >, "'TEITAC General Interface
> Accessibility Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: Re: [teitac-hardware] Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should
> beCovered
>

> Sorry for the cross-posting, for all you hard chargers who are on so many
> subcommittees....
>
> TEITAC has four subcommittee that directly address hardware:
> Desktop/Portable, Telecom, Self-contained/Closed, and General Interface.
>
> We could decide to assign all Hardware issues to Desktop/Portable and re-name
> it Hardware. This would give that subcommittee more work, but at least
> everything hardware would be under one roof. Part of the re-assignment could
> include 1194.23(k)1-4, the "mechanical control" items now in Telecom, but
> repeated in several other categories in the current 508. Alternately,
> 1194.23(k)1-4 could be assigned to General Interface. Right now General
> Interface is only identifying which Standards go across several product
> categories, including 1194.23(k)1-4, but has no forward-looking assignment of
> its own.
>
> The other issue staring us in the face is the notion of self-contained/closed
> systems: is this really a category of products, or a characteristic of some
> hardware?
>
> I'd like to see a good dialog on these 3 questions, with a resolution so that
> we can move forward soon without gaps or overlaps in our work:
>
> 1. Do we create a Hardware subcommittee out of Desktop/Portable?
> 2. If so, do we assign the mechanical control items to Hardware or General
> Interface?
> 3. Is "self-contained/closed" a category or a hardware characteristic?
>
> ***********
> Jim Tobias
> Inclusive Technologies
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> +1.732.441.0831 v/tty
> skype jimtobias
> www.inclusive.com
>
>
>>
>> From: David Wysocki [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
>> Sent: Friday, November 17, 2006 2:32 PM
>> To: TEITAC desktop/portable (hardware) subcommittee
>> Subject: [teitac-hardware] Identifyiing Specific Hardware that Should
>> beCovered
>>
>> Greetings ­ Based on our sub-committee meeting today, addressing the larger
>> concerns raised at the full committee meeting last week in DC, we find
>> ourselves in need of identifying what specific hardware should be addressed
>> by this subcommittee and in what ways do we interface with other
>> subcommittees. This is especially important as more cross-over and changing
>> roles occur among existing and newer technology (e.g., PDA/Phone combos
>> [Blackberries, Treos etc.], handhelds, smart phones, programmable LCD
>> projectors with memory chip and/or network capacity, etc.). Additional
>> concern rises as these technologies become more the norm and common method
>> to perform essential job duties, such as Blackberries. Terry Weaver (GSA)
>> raised another concern explaining that training the public is part of the
>> federal government¹s role and considerations of how the training is accessed
>> (Podcasts, through handhelds, etc.) becomes an issue for 508 accessibility as
>> well.
>>
>>
>>
>> So, our sub-committee is being asked to consider what should be included
>> under ³hardware², keeping factors in mind such as:
>> * What broader-based and multi-function technology is currently part of IT
>> that wasn¹t existent or playing as big of a role during the previous 508
>> writing?
>> * Based on the broader roles of previously single-role hardware, what can we
>> expect to have to address with this 508 refresh assuring we build a robust
>> coverage with decent applicability until the next refresh?
>> * What¹s current, what¹s common, and what can we expect to be so in the
>> not-too-distant future?
>> * Is the hardware considered an open or closed system, or partially open?
>>
>>
>> As we chime in with what we think should or should not be covered, and why,
>> please also consider adding to the above initial list of considerations.
>> Regards - David
>>
>>
>>
>> David J. Wysocki, MS, OTR, ATP
>>
>> Assistant Vice President,
>>
>> Workforce Development / Assistive Technology
>>
>> Easter Seals National Office
>>
>> 230 W. Monroe St., Suite 1800
>>
>> Chicago, IL 60606
>>
>> Direct Line: 312-551-7175
>>
>> Receptionist: 312-726-6200
>>
>> Fax: 312-726-1494
>>
>> TTY: 312-726-4258
>>
>> Email: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>>
>>
>>
>> Be an angel of change. You can change the lives of people with disabilities.
>>
>> Earn your wings at www.easterseals.com <http://www.easterseals.com/>
>>
>>
>
>
>