Thread Subject: Re: Subpart A- Draft - (g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front. and

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Debbie Cook
Date: Fri, Mar 16 2007 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: Subpart A- Draft - (g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front. and

I'm having some difficulty with all of this. My concern is that we cannot
deligate budgetary items although in technical guidance we could certainly
use it as an example. Is a desk phone a personal use item or not? Some would
certainly argue not though it remains on one desk. Likewise, if the
calculators are purchased in bulk and employees aren't individually
selecting them are they really personal use? Could anything in the
procurement process from the FAR be used to help distinquish this?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft - (g)
Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front. and


I'm not sure how this provision shifted to hearing aids.



This discussion started out talking about providing an exception where
non-conformant E&IT could be purchased under the supposition that a person
with a disability could be provided with a different accessible version in
the future if the need came up (e.g. they were hired into a department or
promoted into a job that required the inaccessible equipment.) the example
given was a 'personal use calculator'.



1) That is a great example but the way the provision was written it could
be used to purchase anything. The provision did not mention personal use
products so presumably the provision could apply to small copiers, fax
machines and many other things. This problem could be fixed by adding
"personal use" to the front of the exception - and that is the suggested
fix. That would keep shared E&IT from being purchased under this exception
that was designed for personal use devices (like calculators, cell phones,
etc.) Note that this provision has nothing to do with adaptive equipment
or AT. It is an exception from the rules for mainstream E&IT that needs to
be constrained to only those products it is meant to provide an exception
for.



2) The second part, "from standard office supplies budget" stems from the
biggest concern I have heard from consumers. That exceptions like this are
made, and then when they go to ask for an accessible version they are told
that there is no money from the purchase left to pay for it and there is no
money in the budget. Their supervisor is perfectly willing but there is no
money for it. For small items that would fit into the standard office
budget this is not a problem. For larger items it can be. One could
decide that office computer workstations fit under this provision (even with
the 'personal use' clause. But that might be larger than an office manager
could pay for. Some means for limiting this to small, personal things is
needed. The suggestion would be to add "from standard office supplies
budget". But it doesn't have to be that.



Does someone have other suggestion(s) to keep this limited to small, and
personal use items?



Thanks



Sorry to not be clear.


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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Deborah Buck
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:26 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft - (g) Products
withnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front.

In some circumstances they are personal items- particularly for individuals
who have cognitive disabilities, auditory processing disorders, etc. In
other circumstances they are available for general use -conference rooms,
auditoriums, etc.



-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jagbell
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:49 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft - (g) Products
withnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front.



We need to be very careful. While I agree that hearing aids are personal
items, Assisitive Listening Devices or FMs are not.







On Mar 15, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Deborah Buck wrote:



I shared my concerns with the TEITAC Co-chairs on the discussion on use of
the term "personal use" and wanted to share it with this workgroup.



(g) was proposed because 2 workgroups identified this issue as problematic-
indicating to me that the current language does not suffice and does not
provide enough guidance to be implemented consistently and with confidence.



I'm not sure that classifying devices as "personal devices" or "standard
devices" is the best approach. Unless very clearly defined I could see
broad and inconsistent interpretations of these terms and as result
legitimate complaints from employees. From a procurement perspective I would
think this would be quite challenging to determine what constitutes a
personal device versus a standard device.



Hearing aids, wheelchairs, etc. are considered "Personal devices" and we
should be careful not to mix the two- devices used in the office by an
individual to complete their job responsibilities and devices that are used
by the individual in all environments- not exclusive to the work
environment. In addition, once you tie the purchase to the individual and
their individual needs doesn't it become an accommodation, not a 508
procurement. Agencies have the requirement to provide alternate means of
access when conforming to 508 constitutes an undue burden. I would very
much like to hear from 508 coordinators on whether labeling an item
"personal use" will address the issue.



The suggestion to add "from standard office supplies budget" so it reads

which can and will be purchased from the standard office supplies budget to
meet individual needs

I think that level of specificity goes beyond the scope of the TEITAC and
the Access Board. Its not an appropriate for standards to dictate what
budget or cost accounting code agencies use for purchases.



-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:56 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft - (g) Products with
narrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front.



First - thanks for pulling all this together. Lots of work.





RE:



(g) Products with narrow delineated use, no operating system or software,
no capacity for assistive technology to be attached to the product, such as
personal use calculators, for which an agency can readily document the
availability of specialized products, just as a talking calculator or
calculator with large visual display, which can and will be purchased to
meet individual needs, are not required to comply with this part.





In general I think this is good. I wondering if it is really needed. I
think it is covered by the old language. But it is suble and this can help
people get past the "small personal items" issue.




Two EDITS




1) I think it needs to have "personal use" added to the front so it reads
"Personal use product with narrow..etc" .

Shared or public products should not get pushed into this category.

"Narrow use" by itself is not clear enough and is undefined. I thought it
meant 'not multipurpose" but could also be construed to mean only used by
people in a group or office or floor or..



2) The biggest concern I've heard raised about this (other than no
inadvertantly creating a loophole that can be expanded to cover Mack trucks)
was that agencies say they are willing but it isn't in their budget - so
nothing happens. To make sure this isn't misapplied to things beyond
the ability of departments to buy easily lets add "from standard office
supplies budget" so it reads

which can and will be purchased from the standard office supplies budget to
meet individual needs






Gregg

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

Gregg Vanderheiden

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Mar 18 2007 12:20 PM
Subject: Re: Subpart A- Draft - (g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front. and

Thanks Deborah,



I understand what the exception is for. And I think it is a good idea to
prevent things like calculators from all having to be talking calculators
with large number displays.



So I am for it - if it can be written properly.



The concerns I am hearing though are



1) unless written well it could be applied far beyond calculator sized
products.

2) That it will be applied to products that interoperate with other
products or systems so the "alternate accessible' ones may not work or be
accepted when the time comes and someone needs one.

3) When the time comes, money is not available to purchase the
'accessible version'

4) That when hiring or promoting, people might be biased away from
someone with a disability that would require the manage to go find funding
to purchase accessible versions (if it cost much)





Hmmmmmm


Maybe something like



Personal use products that do not need to interwork with other products or
systems and whose cost is low enough that an alternate version could be
purchased easily with normal operating funds.



That would cover your calculators and other small stand alone products but
not involve things that have to interwork and that are therefore frowned
upon or likely to not work, not work well, not be reliable with continual
system changes and maintenance.



What types of products besides calculators did you have in mind?



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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Deborah Buck
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 3:33 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft - (g)
Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front. and

Greg- in an earlier message you stated that you thought the "old language"
already covered this issue and questioned the need for the addition of
language such as that proposed for a new (g) under Exemptions. What language
were you referring to that already addresses this issue?



This discussion is related to a question that was put to the Access Board
for input- hopefully they will provide some guidance that we can consider as
we discuss this issue. The issue as it was related applies in most cases to
closed products (faxes, copiers and the example given calculators). These
products are reliant on the developer to provide the accessibility and the
issue is unrelated to the timing of the acquisition or whether or not "a
person with a disability could be provided with a different accessible
version in the future if the need came up (e.g. they were hired into a
department or promoted into a job that required the inaccessible
equipment.)" I think it's related to the scope of the acquisition and
requiring agencies to purchase devices that address all of the functional
performance standards. For example, when an agency needs to buy hand held
calculators- do ALL calculators purchased have to be talking calculators?
During the TEITAC meeting it was pointed out that this applies as well to
other examples of closed products - some agencies when purchasing closed
products only purchase those with the full complement of accessibility
features where as some other agencies may require a percentage of the
products purchased to comply with all of the functional performance
requirements. The question from the closed product group on this issue was
related to the cost benefits of requiring across the board conformance.
The exemption language was attempt to address this issue.





-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Friday, March 16, 2007 12:10 AM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft - (g)
Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front. and



I'm not sure how this provision shifted to hearing aids.



This discussion started out talking about providing an exception where
non-conformant E&IT could be purchased under the supposition that a person
with a disability could be provided with a different accessible version in
the future if the need came up (e.g. they were hired into a department or
promoted into a job that required the inaccessible equipment.) the example
given was a 'personal use calculator'.



1) That is a great example but the way the provision was written it could
be used to purchase anything. The provision did not mention personal use
products so presumably the provision could apply to small copiers, fax
machines and many other things. This problem could be fixed by adding
"personal use" to the front of the exception - and that is the suggested
fix. That would keep shared E&IT from being purchased under this exception
that was designed for personal use devices (like calculators, cell phones,
etc.) Note that this provision has nothing to do with adaptive equipment
or AT. It is an exception from the rules for mainstream E&IT that needs to
be constrained to only those products it is meant to provide an exception
for.



2) The second part, "from standard office supplies budget" stems from the
biggest concern I have heard from consumers. That exceptions like this are
made, and then when they go to ask for an accessible version they are told
that there is no money from the purchase left to pay for it and there is no
money in the budget. Their supervisor is perfectly willing but there is no
money for it. For small items that would fit into the standard office
budget this is not a problem. For larger items it can be. One could
decide that office computer workstations fit under this provision (even with
the 'personal use' clause. But that might be larger than an office manager
could pay for. Some means for limiting this to small, personal things is
needed. The suggestion would be to add "from standard office supplies
budget". But it doesn't have to be that.



Does someone have other suggestion(s) to keep this limited to small, and
personal use items?



Thanks



Sorry to not be clear.


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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Deborah Buck
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 5:26 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft - (g) Products
withnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front.

In some circumstances they are personal items- particularly for individuals
who have cognitive disabilities, auditory processing disorders, etc. In
other circumstances they are available for general use -conference rooms,
auditoriums, etc.



-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jagbell
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 2:49 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft - (g) Products
withnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front.



We need to be very careful. While I agree that hearing aids are personal
items, Assisitive Listening Devices or FMs are not.







On Mar 15, 2007, at 11:37 AM, Deborah Buck wrote:



I shared my concerns with the TEITAC Co-chairs on the discussion on use of
the term "personal use" and wanted to share it with this workgroup.



(g) was proposed because 2 workgroups identified this issue as problematic-
indicating to me that the current language does not suffice and does not
provide enough guidance to be implemented consistently and with confidence.



I'm not sure that classifying devices as "personal devices" or "standard
devices" is the best approach. Unless very clearly defined I could see
broad and inconsistent interpretations of these terms and as result
legitimate complaints from employees. From a procurement perspective I would
think this would be quite challenging to determine what constitutes a
personal device versus a standard device.



Hearing aids, wheelchairs, etc. are considered "Personal devices" and we
should be careful not to mix the two- devices used in the office by an
individual to complete their job responsibilities and devices that are used
by the individual in all environments- not exclusive to the work
environment. In addition, once you tie the purchase to the individual and
their individual needs doesn't it become an accommodation, not a 508
procurement. Agencies have the requirement to provide alternate means of
access when conforming to 508 constitutes an undue burden. I would very
much like to hear from 508 coordinators on whether labeling an item
"personal use" will address the issue.



The suggestion to add "from standard office supplies budget" so it reads

which can and will be purchased from the standard office supplies budget to
meet individual needs

I think that level of specificity goes beyond the scope of the TEITAC and
the Access Board. Its not an appropriate for standards to dictate what
budget or cost accounting code agencies use for purchases.



-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:56 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft - (g) Products with
narrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front.



First - thanks for pulling all this together. Lots of work.





RE:



(g) Products with narrow delineated use, no operating system or software,
no capacity for assistive technology to be attached to the product, such as
personal use calculators, for which an agency can readily document the
availability of specialized products, just as a talking calculator or
calculator with large visual display, which can and will be purchased to
meet individual needs, are not required to comply with this part.





In general I think this is good. I wondering if it is really needed. I
think it is covered by the old language. But it is suble and this can help
people get past the "small personal items" issue.




Two EDITS




1) I think it needs to have "personal use" added to the front so it reads
"Personal use product with narrow..etc" .

Shared or public products should not get pushed into this category.

"Narrow use" by itself is not clear enough and is undefined. I thought it
meant 'not multipurpose" but could also be construed to mean only used by
people in a group or office or floor or..



2) The biggest concern I've heard raised about this (other than no
inadvertantly creating a loophole that can be expanded to cover Mack trucks)
was that agencies say they are willing but it isn't in their budget - so
nothing happens. To make sure this isn't misapplied to things beyond
the ability of departments to buy easily lets add "from standard office
supplies budget" so it reads

which can and will be purchased from the standard office supplies budget to
meet individual needs






Gregg

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

Gregg Vanderheiden