Thread Subject: Meeting Reminder for December 19

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Debbie Cook
Date: Mon, Dec 18 2006 2:25 PM
Subject: Meeting Reminder for December 19

We have a call scheduled for tomorrow. I apologize to all of you for not
doing a better job of keeping things up-to-date etc. We have had this
meeting on the radar, but I have just remembered to formally submit it to
the calendar. Details are as follows:
December 19: 4:00 Eastern
Phone: 408-974-8478; pass code 1212

FEDRCC: 616394

Hand-raising: Closed Products



We also have a meeting scheduled for January 2. Since this is immediately
following the holidays and the first day back for many people, we determined
to move that call to January 9th. I will ask Tom to cancel captioning for
the 2nd and reschedule for the 9th and for the 23rd. This will get us to the
next TEITAC meeting.



This subcommittee has really struggled with issues of scope and what
constitutes a closed product. I'm hoping some of this will sort itself
eventually as we move toward a group product (which I hope isn't closed.)
So, for tomorrow I would like to determine the criteria for what
constitutes:

The exception for appliance-type IT, like calculators.

It has been proposed and widely accepted that we would "...grant an
exception because suitable alternative appliances are available. That is,
don't require an agency to purchase only talking calculators [or ones with
accessible keypads] because it's burdensome and because talking calculators
are available."

Question:

If we grant this exception, how does an agency demonstrate that the
availability is true for the specific products they wish to purchase. What
characteristics must those alternatives possess or is it enough to say that
the agency can "reasonably accommodate" and therefore wishes to wave its 508
obligation? Does the solution provider become responsible for providing the
alternatives to the agency?



We need to describe what qualifies for such an exception and how it will be
measured.



Deb

From: Diane Golden
Date: Tue, Dec 19 2006 9:25 AM
Subject: Re: Meeting Reminder for December 19

I can't be on the call today -- but wanted to send some quick thoughts and
questions on this issue. I agree completely that there is a need for the
rules to address this issue as it is one we have struggled with on an
implementation level. It seems that perhaps what is being described is a
"readily substitutable" option that can be applied in certain situations
instead of requiring built-in access or compatibility with add-on AT.
Questions are as follows:

Is this issue limited to only "closed or self-contained" or "appliance-type
IT" (to use Debbie's descriptive term) products? What about substituting
a TTY, VCO or HCO product for a voice only one? The telecom technical
standards would appear to allow that (don't require every telecom product
itself to have TTY, VCO, and HCO capabilities built-in or be compatible with
add-on such products, in fact that is not really much of an option for VCO
and HCO). However, the functional performance standards require all
products have either built-in access or "support for AT" which has usually
been interpreted to mean add-on access, not access delivered by a substitute
product.

What about the requirements for captioning and video description? Does this
concept of "readily substitutable" have a role there? Should the standards
really require that 100% of products have captions and video description or
could you have an option for availability of a substitute product with
captions/description?

How difficult will it be to define a concept like "readily available
substitute" so it does not provide an unintended decrease in the level of
access delivered? Is this more of an application issue (Subpart A) than an
exception for one product type?

And last, I would suggest staying away from the terminology "reasonable
accommodation" because it has a well defined scope that includes lots of
options other than providing a fully accessible substitute end product (e.g.
human assistance and other accommodations.)

Diane Golden, NASCIO


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Debbie Cook
Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 3:16 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-closed] Meeting Reminder for December 19


We have a call scheduled for tomorrow. I apologize to all of you for not
doing a better job of keeping things up-to-date etc. We have had this
meeting on the radar, but I have just remembered to formally submit it to
the calendar. Details are as follows:
December 19: 4:00 Eastern
Phone: 408-974-8478; pass code 1212

FEDRCC: 616394

Hand-raising: Closed Products



We also have a meeting scheduled for January 2. Since this is immediately
following the holidays and the first day back for many people, we determined
to move that call to January 9th. I will ask Tom to cancel captioning for
the 2nd and reschedule for the 9th and for the 23rd. This will get us to the
next TEITAC meeting.



This subcommittee has really struggled with issues of scope and what
constitutes a closed product. I'm hoping some of this will sort itself
eventually as we move toward a group product (which I hope isn't closed.)
So, for tomorrow I would like to determine the criteria for what
constitutes:

The exception for appliance-type IT, like calculators.

It has been proposed and widely accepted that we would "...grant an
exception because suitable alternative appliances are available. That is,
don't require an agency to purchase only talking calculators [or ones with
accessible keypads] because it's burdensome and because talking calculators
are available."

Question:

If we grant this exception, how does an agency demonstrate that the
availability is true for the specific products they wish to purchase. What
characteristics must those alternatives possess or is it enough to say that
the agency can "reasonably accommodate" and therefore wishes to wave its 508
obligation? Does the solution provider become responsible for providing the
alternatives to the agency?



We need to describe what qualifies for such an exception and how it will be
measured.



Deb

From: Diane Golden
Date: Tue, Dec 19 2006 11:10 AM
Subject: Re: Meeting Reminder for December 19

Which goes to the heart of what we learned is accually happening in telecom
related to 20 dB of gain. While that is the 508 requirement, products are
routinely (or even universally) purchased that do not deliver that gain
(thus do not meet the standard), but the purchase is justified by saying
that a substitute handset or in-line amplifier is available that will
deliver such gain. So in reality this is already happening at an
implementation level -- consistent with 508 intent or not.

Diane

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Debbie Cook
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 11:57 AM
To: TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Meeting Reminder for December 19


Yes. This is why I want to get some real clarification on this. What I think
is being proposed is something along the lines of accessibility in the
product line rather than a requirement for accessibility of procurements.
Recognizing that there are some products where a particular "accommodation"
might be more appropriate than a universally designed product, I'm OK with
this in theory. But for it to be effective, it has to be very defined.
Otherwise we end up with a 504 accommodation rather than procuring
accessible AT. So, where is the line on this? When is it OK?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC self contained/closed products
subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Cc: "'Laura Ruby (E-mail)'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'Deborah Buck (E-mail)'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Meeting Reminder for December 19


Actually, I believe the requirement is that all telecom products be able to
support VCO. They also either need to support TTY connection or provide TTY
functionality.

As I understand it, one of the goals of 508 was to have the environment
support people with disabilities (even if they are not currently present)
rather than to have the personal environment around the person be adapted.
That is 504. This did NOT include having AT where people where not. But all
the Accessible design and AT compatibility was intended to be in the
environment to allow people with disabilities to move into and around in the
government workplace. (and public access to gov info and services too).


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:25 AM
> To: 'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'
> Cc: Laura Ruby (E-mail); Deborah Buck (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Meeting Reminder for December 19
>
> I can't be on the call today -- but wanted to send some quick
> thoughts and questions on this issue. I agree completely
> that there is a need for the rules to address this issue as
> it is one we have struggled with on an implementation level.
> It seems that perhaps what is being described is a "readily
> substitutable" option that can be applied in certain
> situations instead of requiring built-in access or
> compatibility with add-on AT.
> Questions are as follows:
>
> Is this issue limited to only "closed or self-contained" or
> "appliance-type
> IT" (to use Debbie's descriptive term) products? What
> about substituting
> a TTY, VCO or HCO product for a voice only one? The telecom
> technical standards would appear to allow that (don't require
> every telecom product itself to have TTY, VCO, and HCO
> capabilities built-in or be compatible with add-on such
> products, in fact that is not really much of an option for
> VCO and HCO). However, the functional performance standards
> require all products have either built-in access or "support
> for AT" which has usually been interpreted to mean add-on
> access, not access delivered by a substitute product.
>
> What about the requirements for captioning and video
> description? Does this concept of "readily substitutable"
> have a role there? Should the standards really require that
> 100% of products have captions and video description or could
> you have an option for availability of a substitute product
> with captions/description?
>
> How difficult will it be to define a concept like "readily
> available substitute" so it does not provide an unintended
> decrease in the level of access delivered? Is this more of
> an application issue (Subpart A) than an exception for one
> product type?
>
> And last, I would suggest staying away from the terminology
> "reasonable accommodation" because it has a well defined
> scope that includes lots of options other than providing a
> fully accessible substitute end product (e.g.
> human assistance and other accommodations.)
>
> Diane Golden, NASCIO
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Debbie Cook
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 3:16 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-closed] Meeting Reminder for December 19
>
>
> We have a call scheduled for tomorrow. I apologize to all of
> you for not doing a better job of keeping things up-to-date
> etc. We have had this meeting on the radar, but I have just
> remembered to formally submit it to the calendar. Details are
> as follows:
> December 19: 4:00 Eastern
> Phone: 408-974-8478; pass code 1212
>
> FEDRCC: 616394
>
> Hand-raising: Closed Products
>
>
>
> We also have a meeting scheduled for January 2. Since this is
> immediately following the holidays and the first day back for
> many people, we determined to move that call to January 9th.
> I will ask Tom to cancel captioning for the 2nd and
> reschedule for the 9th and for the 23rd. This will get us to
> the next TEITAC meeting.
>
>
>
> This subcommittee has really struggled with issues of scope
> and what constitutes a closed product. I'm hoping some of
> this will sort itself eventually as we move toward a group
> product (which I hope isn't closed.) So, for tomorrow I would
> like to determine the criteria for what
> constitutes:
>
> The exception for appliance-type IT, like calculators.
>
> It has been proposed and widely accepted that we would
> "...grant an exception because suitable alternative
> appliances are available. That is, don't require an agency to
> purchase only talking calculators [or ones with accessible
> keypads] because it's burdensome and because talking
> calculators are available."
>
> Question:
>
> If we grant this exception, how does an agency demonstrate
> that the availability is true for the specific products they
> wish to purchase. What characteristics must those
> alternatives possess or is it enough to say that the agency
> can "reasonably accommodate" and therefore wishes to wave its
> 508 obligation? Does the solution provider become responsible
> for providing the alternatives to the agency?
>
>
>
> We need to describe what qualifies for such an exception and
> how it will be measured.
>
>
>
> Deb
>
>

From: Debbie Cook
Date: Tue, Dec 19 2006 11:25 AM
Subject: Re: Meeting Reminder for December 19

Yes. This is why I want to get some real clarification on this. What I think
is being proposed is something along the lines of accessibility in the
product line rather than a requirement for accessibility of procurements.
Recognizing that there are some products where a particular "accommodation"
might be more appropriate than a universally designed product, I'm OK with
this in theory. But for it to be effective, it has to be very defined.
Otherwise we end up with a 504 accommodation rather than procuring
accessible AT. So, where is the line on this? When is it OK?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC self contained/closed products
subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Cc: "'Laura Ruby (E-mail)'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'Deborah Buck (E-mail)'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Meeting Reminder for December 19


Actually, I believe the requirement is that all telecom products be able to
support VCO. They also either need to support TTY connection or provide TTY
functionality.

As I understand it, one of the goals of 508 was to have the environment
support people with disabilities (even if they are not currently present)
rather than to have the personal environment around the person be adapted.
That is 504. This did NOT include having AT where people where not. But all
the Accessible design and AT compatibility was intended to be in the
environment to allow people with disabilities to move into and around in the
government workplace. (and public access to gov info and services too).


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:25 AM
> To: 'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'
> Cc: Laura Ruby (E-mail); Deborah Buck (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Meeting Reminder for December 19
>
> I can't be on the call today -- but wanted to send some quick
> thoughts and questions on this issue. I agree completely
> that there is a need for the rules to address this issue as
> it is one we have struggled with on an implementation level.
> It seems that perhaps what is being described is a "readily
> substitutable" option that can be applied in certain
> situations instead of requiring built-in access or
> compatibility with add-on AT.
> Questions are as follows:
>
> Is this issue limited to only "closed or self-contained" or
> "appliance-type
> IT" (to use Debbie's descriptive term) products? What
> about substituting
> a TTY, VCO or HCO product for a voice only one? The telecom
> technical standards would appear to allow that (don't require
> every telecom product itself to have TTY, VCO, and HCO
> capabilities built-in or be compatible with add-on such
> products, in fact that is not really much of an option for
> VCO and HCO). However, the functional performance standards
> require all products have either built-in access or "support
> for AT" which has usually been interpreted to mean add-on
> access, not access delivered by a substitute product.
>
> What about the requirements for captioning and video
> description? Does this concept of "readily substitutable"
> have a role there? Should the standards really require that
> 100% of products have captions and video description or could
> you have an option for availability of a substitute product
> with captions/description?
>
> How difficult will it be to define a concept like "readily
> available substitute" so it does not provide an unintended
> decrease in the level of access delivered? Is this more of
> an application issue (Subpart A) than an exception for one
> product type?
>
> And last, I would suggest staying away from the terminology
> "reasonable accommodation" because it has a well defined
> scope that includes lots of options other than providing a
> fully accessible substitute end product (e.g.
> human assistance and other accommodations.)
>
> Diane Golden, NASCIO
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Debbie Cook
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 3:16 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-closed] Meeting Reminder for December 19
>
>
> We have a call scheduled for tomorrow. I apologize to all of
> you for not doing a better job of keeping things up-to-date
> etc. We have had this meeting on the radar, but I have just
> remembered to formally submit it to the calendar. Details are
> as follows:
> December 19: 4:00 Eastern
> Phone: 408-974-8478; pass code 1212
>
> FEDRCC: 616394
>
> Hand-raising: Closed Products
>
>
>
> We also have a meeting scheduled for January 2. Since this is
> immediately following the holidays and the first day back for
> many people, we determined to move that call to January 9th.
> I will ask Tom to cancel captioning for the 2nd and
> reschedule for the 9th and for the 23rd. This will get us to
> the next TEITAC meeting.
>
>
>
> This subcommittee has really struggled with issues of scope
> and what constitutes a closed product. I'm hoping some of
> this will sort itself eventually as we move toward a group
> product (which I hope isn't closed.) So, for tomorrow I would
> like to determine the criteria for what
> constitutes:
>
> The exception for appliance-type IT, like calculators.
>
> It has been proposed and widely accepted that we would
> "...grant an exception because suitable alternative
> appliances are available. That is, don't require an agency to
> purchase only talking calculators [or ones with accessible
> keypads] because it's burdensome and because talking
> calculators are available."
>
> Question:
>
> If we grant this exception, how does an agency demonstrate
> that the availability is true for the specific products they
> wish to purchase. What characteristics must those
> alternatives possess or is it enough to say that the agency
> can "reasonably accommodate" and therefore wishes to wave its
> 508 obligation? Does the solution provider become responsible
> for providing the alternatives to the agency?
>
>
>
> We need to describe what qualifies for such an exception and
> how it will be measured.
>
>
>
> Deb
>
>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Dec 19 2006 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: Meeting Reminder for December 19

Actually, I believe the requirement is that all telecom products be able to
support VCO. They also either need to support TTY connection or provide TTY
functionality.

As I understand it, one of the goals of 508 was to have the environment
support people with disabilities (even if they are not currently present)
rather than to have the personal environment around the person be adapted.
That is 504. This did NOT include having AT where people where not. But all
the Accessible design and AT compatibility was intended to be in the
environment to allow people with disabilities to move into and around in the
government workplace. (and public access to gov info and services too).


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 10:25 AM
> To: 'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'
> Cc: Laura Ruby (E-mail); Deborah Buck (E-mail)
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Meeting Reminder for December 19
>
> I can't be on the call today -- but wanted to send some quick
> thoughts and questions on this issue. I agree completely
> that there is a need for the rules to address this issue as
> it is one we have struggled with on an implementation level.
> It seems that perhaps what is being described is a "readily
> substitutable" option that can be applied in certain
> situations instead of requiring built-in access or
> compatibility with add-on AT.
> Questions are as follows:
>
> Is this issue limited to only "closed or self-contained" or
> "appliance-type
> IT" (to use Debbie's descriptive term) products? What
> about substituting
> a TTY, VCO or HCO product for a voice only one? The telecom
> technical standards would appear to allow that (don't require
> every telecom product itself to have TTY, VCO, and HCO
> capabilities built-in or be compatible with add-on such
> products, in fact that is not really much of an option for
> VCO and HCO). However, the functional performance standards
> require all products have either built-in access or "support
> for AT" which has usually been interpreted to mean add-on
> access, not access delivered by a substitute product.
>
> What about the requirements for captioning and video
> description? Does this concept of "readily substitutable"
> have a role there? Should the standards really require that
> 100% of products have captions and video description or could
> you have an option for availability of a substitute product
> with captions/description?
>
> How difficult will it be to define a concept like "readily
> available substitute" so it does not provide an unintended
> decrease in the level of access delivered? Is this more of
> an application issue (Subpart A) than an exception for one
> product type?
>
> And last, I would suggest staying away from the terminology
> "reasonable accommodation" because it has a well defined
> scope that includes lots of options other than providing a
> fully accessible substitute end product (e.g.
> human assistance and other accommodations.)
>
> Diane Golden, NASCIO
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Debbie Cook
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 3:16 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-closed] Meeting Reminder for December 19
>
>
> We have a call scheduled for tomorrow. I apologize to all of
> you for not doing a better job of keeping things up-to-date
> etc. We have had this meeting on the radar, but I have just
> remembered to formally submit it to the calendar. Details are
> as follows:
> December 19: 4:00 Eastern
> Phone: 408-974-8478; pass code 1212
>
> FEDRCC: 616394
>
> Hand-raising: Closed Products
>
>
>
> We also have a meeting scheduled for January 2. Since this is
> immediately following the holidays and the first day back for
> many people, we determined to move that call to January 9th.
> I will ask Tom to cancel captioning for the 2nd and
> reschedule for the 9th and for the 23rd. This will get us to
> the next TEITAC meeting.
>
>
>
> This subcommittee has really struggled with issues of scope
> and what constitutes a closed product. I'm hoping some of
> this will sort itself eventually as we move toward a group
> product (which I hope isn't closed.) So, for tomorrow I would
> like to determine the criteria for what
> constitutes:
>
> The exception for appliance-type IT, like calculators.
>
> It has been proposed and widely accepted that we would
> "...grant an exception because suitable alternative
> appliances are available. That is, don't require an agency to
> purchase only talking calculators [or ones with accessible
> keypads] because it's burdensome and because talking
> calculators are available."
>
> Question:
>
> If we grant this exception, how does an agency demonstrate
> that the availability is true for the specific products they
> wish to purchase. What characteristics must those
> alternatives possess or is it enough to say that the agency
> can "reasonably accommodate" and therefore wishes to wave its
> 508 obligation? Does the solution provider become responsible
> for providing the alternatives to the agency?
>
>
>
> We need to describe what qualifies for such an exception and
> how it will be measured.
>
>
>
> Deb
>
>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Dec 21 2006 5:50 PM
Subject: Re: Meeting Reminder for December 19

Hmmm

A copier is also an appliance like product. And the fax. And most
everything else that is well designed. Phones are appliance like as well.

I think


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Debbie Cook
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2006 3:16 PM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-closed] Meeting Reminder for December 19
>
> We have a call scheduled for tomorrow. I apologize to all of
> you for not doing a better job of keeping things up-to-date
> etc. We have had this meeting on the radar, but I have just
> remembered to formally submit it to the calendar. Details are
> as follows:
> December 19: 4:00 Eastern
> Phone: 408-974-8478; pass code 1212
>
> FEDRCC: 616394
>
> Hand-raising: Closed Products
>
>
>
> We also have a meeting scheduled for January 2. Since this is
> immediately following the holidays and the first day back for
> many people, we determined to move that call to January 9th.
> I will ask Tom to cancel captioning for the 2nd and
> reschedule for the 9th and for the 23rd. This will get us to
> the next TEITAC meeting.
>
>
>
> This subcommittee has really struggled with issues of scope
> and what constitutes a closed product. I'm hoping some of
> this will sort itself eventually as we move toward a group
> product (which I hope isn't closed.) So, for tomorrow I would
> like to determine the criteria for what
> constitutes:
>
> The exception for appliance-type IT, like calculators.
>
> It has been proposed and widely accepted that we would
> "...grant an exception because suitable alternative
> appliances are available. That is, don't require an agency to
> purchase only talking calculators [or ones with accessible
> keypads] because it's burdensome and because talking
> calculators are available."
>
> Question:
>
> If we grant this exception, how does an agency demonstrate
> that the availability is true for the specific products they
> wish to purchase. What characteristics must those
> alternatives possess or is it enough to say that the agency
> can "reasonably accommodate" and therefore wishes to wave its
> 508 obligation? Does the solution provider become responsible
> for providing the alternatives to the agency?
>
>
>
> We need to describe what qualifies for such an exception and
> how it will be measured.
>
>
>
> Deb
>
>

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Fri, Dec 22 2006 6:25 AM
Subject: Re: Meeting Reminder for December 19

Gregg wrote:

> A copier is also an appliance like product. And the fax. And most
> everything else that is well designed. Phones are appliance
> like as well.

I think we need a more formal definition of the concept we're using, and I'm
not sure that "appliance" is the right word, but it'll do for now. The idea
of an appliance is that it:

1. cannot be readily controlled from an external device which is accessible
and allows accessible operation of the appliance
2. does not contain and cannot load and run additional software which allows
accessible operation of the appliance

If I'm hearing the discussion of calculators correctly, it sounds as if we
are willing to exempt appliances *if and only if* there are accessible
models (e.g. talking calculators), and if the procurement can include a
reasonable number of such models as accommodations wherever necessary.

Now, there are *some* copiers, fax machines, and phones that would fall into
this definition. But there are also *some*, especially among the products
the feds buy, that either can be fully controlled by a PC or can load and
run additional software. The goal of the regs should be to encourage the
purchase of the latter over the former, right?

I don't think it'll be too hard to write this concept into the regs.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Dec 22 2006 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: Meeting Reminder for December 19

This is good summary

I was also adding two other qualifiers.

1) It had to be a personal device - not a shared device

2) It had to be something inexpensive that a manager would/could purchase a
special one for the person (this you got close to in your writeup but just
said a reasonable number would be included in procurement. I think that it
would be hard to do that way. I think it should be just for little stuff
that falls in this category so that it can indeed match need. A few
scattered about won't work or be found or will turn into just one -- of the
wrong type.)




So copiers etc would not qualify. For cost or personal aspect.


Otherwise good workup I think.




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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jim Tobias
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 7:20 AM
> To: 'TEITAC self contained/closed products subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-closed] Meeting Reminder for December 19
>
> Gregg wrote:
>
> > A copier is also an appliance like product. And the fax. And most
> > everything else that is well designed. Phones are appliance
> > like as well.
>
> I think we need a more formal definition of the concept we're
> using, and I'm not sure that "appliance" is the right word,
> but it'll do for now. The idea of an appliance is that it:
>
> 1. cannot be readily controlled from an external device which
> is accessible and allows accessible operation of the
> appliance 2. does not contain and cannot load and run
> additional software which allows accessible operation of the appliance
>
> If I'm hearing the discussion of calculators correctly, it
> sounds as if we are willing to exempt appliances *if and only
> if* there are accessible models (e.g. talking calculators),
> and if the procurement can include a reasonable number of
> such models as accommodations wherever necessary.
>
> Now, there are *some* copiers, fax machines, and phones that
> would fall into this definition. But there are also *some*,
> especially among the products the feds buy, that either can
> be fully controlled by a PC or can load and run additional
> software. The goal of the regs should be to encourage the
> purchase of the latter over the former, right?
>
> I don't think it'll be too hard to write this concept into the regs.
>
>

From: Debbie Cook
Date: Fri, Jun 22 2007 8:40 AM
Subject: Meeting Reminder

Just a reminder that the Self-Contained Closed subcommittee meets again
today at 1:00 eastern. I have updated our notes in the Key Links section on
the page.

We're actually close to completing our proposed work and will continue to
examine the functional performance standards to see if there are additional
technical requirements that should be applied to Closed Products as
discussed during the last TIETAC meeting.


Debbie Cook
WA Assistive Technology Program
Box 357920
Seattle, WA 98195-7920
Phone: 206-685-4181

From: Debbie Cook
Date: Fri, Aug 03 2007 7:50 AM
Subject: Meeting Reminder

We will have a meeting today at 1:00 eastern as scheduled. I would like to
begin with a review of the items we have submitted thus far. I have received
some concerns about many of them from industry, but none of these concerns
have been formalized. So, I'd like to use some of our call time to do that.
If you do have concerns about the new proposals for Closed products that
address access with low vision, no vision or with hearing loss, please
express those on this list or via the call so we can try to respond and
resolve. The rest of the call will prioritize our work and develop a
strategy for completing the next phase for submission.

Deb


Debbie Cook
WA Assistive Technology Program
Box 357920
Seattle, WA 98195-7920
Phone: 206-685-4181

From: Tom Brett
Date: Fri, Aug 03 2007 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: Meeting Reminder

Here is the contact information for this afternoon's meeting


1-800-249-5618 Access code 1212

FEDRCC Reservation # 759688

TOHRU...Closed Products


Tom Brett

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Debbie Cook
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 9:48 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: [teitac-closed] Meeting Reminder

We will have a meeting today at 1:00 eastern as scheduled. I would like to
begin with a review of the items we have submitted thus far. I have received

some concerns about many of them from industry, but none of these concerns
have been formalized. So, I'd like to use some of our call time to do that.
If you do have concerns about the new proposals for Closed products that
address access with low vision, no vision or with hearing loss, please
express those on this list or via the call so we can try to respond and
resolve. The rest of the call will prioritize our work and develop a
strategy for completing the next phase for submission.

Deb


Debbie Cook
WA Assistive Technology Program
Box 357920
Seattle, WA 98195-7920
Phone: 206-685-4181