Thread Subject: Re: SubpartA-Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Diane Golden
Date: Sat, Mar 17 2007 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: SubpartA-Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.

To help me understand why we need a defintion of AT or what we need it to
distinguish between -- I did a search on where the term is used in the 508
rules. Other than the defintion, AT is used in one of the exceptions -- the
standards don't require "the installation of specific accessibility-related
software or the attachment of an assistive technology device . . . "
Interesting use of the term "accessiblity-related software" which is not
defined anywhere. AT is also used in the definition of Self-Contained,
Closed Products - "user cannot easily attach or install assistive
technology" and in the first standard under self-contained, closed in the
same way. So all of these references are really focused on the "add-on"
part of AT.

AT is also used under Software and Web in a few standards -- "focus shall be
programmatically exposed so that assistive technology can track", "identity,
operation and state of (user interface) element shall be available to
assistive technology", "information provided by script shall be identified
with functional text that can be read by assistive technology", and
electronic forms "shall allow people using assistive technology to access .
. . " I'm not sure but it almost looks like the term "accessibility-related
software" might be appropriate to substitute for AT in these instances.
These standards don't seem to need the use of a broad term like AT.

It might be helpful to see what revisions happen in the standards before
spending a lot of time working on an AT definition that might not be all
that needed to help understand the standards.

Diane Golden
NASCIO


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 2:30 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart
A-Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.


I think Jim addressed it quite well.

I think the solution is to define "AT as used in this standard"

The definition of AT has to be different in different places. The

Definition in the AT ACT is a 'use' definition as Jim described below.

We need a "thing" definition (not necessarily even an object). The thing
can be anything that would be considered a technology including hardware,
software, and some services.

I think something along the lines of Technology that is designed
specifically for use by people with disabilities.

(I would avoid "marketed as" because people may market mainstream at to a
disability group - but it would still be mainstream technology - raising the
same issue Jim did below.)

Repurposing mainstream technology would be AT though (adding software to a
computer to make it into a communication aid).



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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Jim Tobias
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 10:19 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.
>
>
>

From: Jessica M. Brodey
Date: Sat, Mar 17 2007 10:00 PM
Subject: Re: SubpartA-Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.

Diane:

Thanks for doing that search. I think in most of the cases, the use of
"assistive technology" seems more related to "assistive technology device."
In the web and software sections, I think substituting assistive technology
device would be preferable to accessibility-related software. Some of the
information that needs to be exposed to assistive technology is for the use
of assistive technology devices such as switches, or eye trackers, etc.

Jessica Brodey

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 4:26 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta]
SubpartA-Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.

To help me understand why we need a defintion of AT or what we need it to
distinguish between -- I did a search on where the term is used in the 508
rules. Other than the defintion, AT is used in one of the exceptions -- the
standards don't require "the installation of specific accessibility-related
software or the attachment of an assistive technology device . . . "
Interesting use of the term "accessiblity-related software" which is not
defined anywhere. AT is also used in the definition of Self-Contained,
Closed Products - "user cannot easily attach or install assistive
technology" and in the first standard under self-contained, closed in the
same way. So all of these references are really focused on the "add-on"
part of AT.

AT is also used under Software and Web in a few standards -- "focus shall be
programmatically exposed so that assistive technology can track", "identity,
operation and state of (user interface) element shall be available to
assistive technology", "information provided by script shall be identified
with functional text that can be read by assistive technology", and
electronic forms "shall allow people using assistive technology to access .
. . " I'm not sure but it almost looks like the term "accessibility-related
software" might be appropriate to substitute for AT in these instances.
These standards don't seem to need the use of a broad term like AT.

It might be helpful to see what revisions happen in the standards before
spending a lot of time working on an AT definition that might not be all
that needed to help understand the standards.

Diane Golden
NASCIO


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 2:30 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart
A-Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.


I think Jim addressed it quite well.

I think the solution is to define "AT as used in this standard"

The definition of AT has to be different in different places. The

Definition in the AT ACT is a 'use' definition as Jim described below.

We need a "thing" definition (not necessarily even an object). The thing
can be anything that would be considered a technology including hardware,
software, and some services.

I think something along the lines of Technology that is designed
specifically for use by people with disabilities.

(I would avoid "marketed as" because people may market mainstream at to a
disability group - but it would still be mainstream technology - raising the
same issue Jim did below.)

Repurposing mainstream technology would be AT though (adding software to a
computer to make it into a communication aid).



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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Jim Tobias
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 10:19 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.
>
>
>

From: Diane Golden
Date: Sun, Mar 18 2007 5:45 PM
Subject: Re: SubpartA-Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.

I'm thinking swiches and other similar alternative input devices use a software interface and that is what the web and software access standards are addressing via exposure and compatibility. Is that correct?

Diane


----- Original Message ----
From: Jessica M. Brodey < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 10:55:32 PM
Subject: RE: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.


Diane:

Thanks for doing that search. I think in most of the cases, the use of
"assistive technology" seems more related to "assistive technology device."
In the web and software sections, I think substituting assistive technology
device would be preferable to accessibility-related software. Some of the
information that needs to be exposed to assistive technology is for the use
of assistive technology devices such as switches, or eye trackers, etc.

Jessica Brodey

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 4:26 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta]
SubpartA-Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.

To help me understand why we need a defintion of AT or what we need it to
distinguish between -- I did a search on where the term is used in the 508
rules. Other than the defintion, AT is used in one of the exceptions -- the
standards don't require "the installation of specific accessibility-related
software or the attachment of an assistive technology device . . . "
Interesting use of the term "accessiblity-related software" which is not
defined anywhere. AT is also used in the definition of Self-Contained,
Closed Products - "user cannot easily attach or install assistive
technology" and in the first standard under self-contained, closed in the
same way. So all of these references are really focused on the "add-on"
part of AT.

AT is also used under Software and Web in a few standards -- "focus shall be
programmatically exposed so that assistive technology can track", "identity,
operation and state of (user interface) element shall be available to
assistive technology", "information provided by script shall be identified
with functional text that can be read by assistive technology", and
electronic forms "shall allow people using assistive technology to access .
. . " I'm not sure but it almost looks like the term "accessibility-related
software" might be appropriate to substitute for AT in these instances.
These standards don't seem to need the use of a broad term like AT.

It might be helpful to see what revisions happen in the standards before
spending a lot of time working on an AT definition that might not be all
that needed to help understand the standards.

Diane Golden
NASCIO


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 2:30 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart
A-Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.


I think Jim addressed it quite well.

I think the solution is to define "AT as used in this standard"

The definition of AT has to be different in different places. The

Definition in the AT ACT is a 'use' definition as Jim described below.

We need a "thing" definition (not necessarily even an object). The thing
can be anything that would be considered a technology including hardware,
software, and some services.

I think something along the lines of Technology that is designed
specifically for use by people with disabilities.

(I would avoid "marketed as" because people may market mainstream at to a
disability group - but it would still be mainstream technology - raising the
same issue Jim did below.)

Repurposing mainstream technology would be AT though (adding software to a
computer to make it into a communication aid).



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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Jim Tobias
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 10:19 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.
>
>
>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Sun, Mar 18 2007 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: SubpartA-Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.

AT refers to both hardware and software (and now services).



For people with physical disabilities it is often hardware - but can also be
software as well. There are many software AT packages.



For blindness it is mostly software.



For cognitive it is mostly software.





Interestingly the AT provisions in the software group are mostly for
software AT compatibility. The provisions in hardware are mostly for AT
devices.






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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 8:41 PM
To: Jessica M. Brodey; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta]
SubpartA-Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.

I'm thinking swiches and other similar alternative input devices use a
software interface and that is what the web and software access standards
are addressing via exposure and compatibility. Is that correct?



Diane

----- Original Message ----
From: Jessica M. Brodey < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 10:55:32 PM
Subject: RE: [teitac-subparta]
SubpartA-Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.

Diane:

Thanks for doing that search. I think in most of the cases, the use of
"assistive technology" seems more related to "assistive technology device."
In the web and software sections, I think substituting assistive technology
device would be preferable to accessibility-related software. Some of the
information that needs to be exposed to assistive technology is for the use
of assistive technology devices such as switches, or eye trackers, etc.

Jessica Brodey

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 4:26 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta]
SubpartA-Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.

To help me understand why we need a defintion of AT or what we need it to
distinguish between -- I did a search on where the term is used in the 508
rules. Other than the defintion, AT is used in one of the exceptions -- the
standards don't require "the installation of specific accessibility-related
software or the attachment of an assistive technology device . . . "
Interesting use of the term "accessiblity-related software" which is not
defined anywhere. AT is also used in the definition of Self-Contained,
Closed Products - "user cannot easily attach or install assistive
technology" and in the first standard under self-contained, closed in the
same way. So all of these references are really focused on the "add-on"
part of AT.

AT is also used under Software and Web in a few standards -- "focus shall be
programmatically exposed so that assistive technology can track", "identity,
operation and state of (user interface) element shall be available to
assistive technology", "information provided by script shall be identified
with functional text that can be read by assistive technology", and
electronic forms "shall allow people using assistive technology to access .
. . " I'm not sure but it almost looks like the term "accessibility-related
software" might be appropriate to substitute for AT in these instances.
These standards don't seem to need the use of a broad term like AT.

It might be helpful to see what revisions happen in the standards before
spending a lot of time working on an AT definition that might not be all
that needed to help understand the standards.

Diane Golden
NASCIO


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 2:30 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart
A-Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.


I think Jim addressed it quite well.

I think the solution is to define "AT as used in this standard"

The definition of AT has to be different in different places. The

Definition in the AT ACT is a 'use' definition as Jim described below.

We need a "thing" definition (not necessarily even an object). The thing
can be anything that would be considered a technology including hardware,
software, and some services.

I think something along the lines of Technology that is designed
specifically for use by people with disabilities.

(I would avoid "marketed as" because people may market mainstream at to a
disability group - but it would still be mainstream technology - raising the
same issue Jim did below.)

Repurposing mainstream technology would be AT though (adding software to a
computer to make it into a communication aid).



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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Jim Tobias
> Sent: Saturday, March 17, 2007 10:19 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.
>
>
>

From: Jessica M. Brodey
Date: Mon, Mar 19 2007 2:50 PM
Subject: Re: SubpartA-Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.

Tom:



I agree with your example - that is one place where subjecting AT to 508 (or
to 255) would be beneficial. The problem would arise when an individual who
cannot access a computer keyboard or mouse is denied access to a product
such as an eyetracker because it is not accessible to someone who is Blind,
or the government is not allowed to purchase an AAC device for an employee
because the keyboard is deemed to be noncompliant with section 508. My
position is not that people with multiple disabilities should not have
access, it is that when we begin to draw some of these lines, the unintended
consequence might be to deny access to the very same assistive technology
for other people with disabilities. We must be careful in how we proceed,
because AT is often the only way individuals gain access to E&IT, and it is
often through a series of specific, personal links of AT, tailored to the
specific needs of persons with disabilities. Often, that AT is designed to
meet one particular need, and people with multiple disabilities are in need
of multiple AT devices, not a "one size fits all product." (Sometimes a one
size fits all product can fit the bill.) This is where interoperability
begins to come into play, and finding ways to encourage and promote
interoperability is a critical component in this process.



Jessica

_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Tom Brett
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 5:27 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart
A-Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.



If there is technology that allows the Deaf and Hard of hearing to
communicate with the hearing in a seamless manner without the use of relay
operators or captioning services, shouldn't it also be able to allow blind
or Deaf/Blind colleagues to participate with the Deaf and Hearing?



I guess the real question is does 508 cover people with multiple
disabilities?



Tom Brett



_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jessica M.
Brodey
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 3:34 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
Draft-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.



Terry:



Not to open a can of worms and re-start this debate, the statement that AT
must be conformant to Section 508 is not settled law. Indeed, many
departments specifically exempt AT from the 508 requirements. While it is
clear that much AT could fall within the current definition of E&IT, it is
unclear that 508 intended to require all AT to be subjected to the same
requirements as mainstream E&IT. Often, it is AT that is seen as providing
the access when mainstream E&IT cannot or does not (as in the functional
requirements "or be compatible with assistive technology"). Indeed, in many
circumstances, subjecting AT to 508 requirements would result in undermining
the value of the AT product. Under the current 508 standards, there are no
provisions that directly set forth requirements for AT as a separate
category. Some departments and individuals would argue that AT that is also
software should be required to follow the same requirements as set forth in
the software requirements of 508, however, there are some types of AT,
intended to provide a very narrow or specific type of access for a single
individual with a specific disability that may run into conflicts when
subjected to the requirements of 508. We have to be careful that we do not
create a situation in which the federal government is unable to purchase a
piece of AT that will provide specific access for one individual with a
disability (and the relevant E&IT) because it is not "508 compliant" when
the AT was never intended to serve more than that one specific need.



Jessica Brodey



_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:38 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Cc: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft
-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.




Actually, AT is required to be conformant to Section 508 if it is an EIT
product. Therefore, a specialized chair does not have 508 requirements but
the screenreader software does.



"David Poehlman" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =

03/16/2007 07:15 AM


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


To

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


cc




Subject

Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft -Definitions-Assistivetechnology
service.











well,

WE could dropp AT and replace it with AIT accessible information
technology but that would open a real can of worms because in
describing compliance, we'd often have to say that a product is
accessible if you add this type of component. I do agree that there
is a funding end issue but I think that is a law that needs to be
changed. If a prescription is written for a talking clock it should
be honored.

On Mar 15, 2007, at 9:13 PM, Deborah Buck wrote:

Pretty much anything can fall under the definition of AT. AT can include
everything from a tilt in space wheelchair to an electric can opener
to toys
and beyond - well beyond. A plain old telephone that is hearing aid
compatible could be considered AT and could be considered Accessible
Mainstream Technology. The intent of the definition of AT is to
ensure that
it is very broad- where the limits come in (which is not an issue for
508)
is at the funding end. 3rd party payors (Medicaid, Private insurance,
Medicare) in most cases will not pay for accessible mainstream
technology -
for example Medicaid is unlikely to pay for a product purchased off the
shelf at Radio Shack or Wal- Mart, but they will (in most cases) pay
for AT.
I understand Jim's comments and the distinction and awareness you're
trying
to promote- but if we are focusing on including definitions of terms in
Subpart A that appear in the standards - AT is a term that is clearly
used.
I don't want to presume that AMT won't be a term used and assume we
don't
need a definition- have any of the workgroups used this term in drafting
standards- in which case we would need to provide a definition in
Subpart A.




-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Jagbell
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 7:37 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft
-Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.



I disagree. I think it is ensuring that products are hearing aid
compatible. That could fall under assistive technology.





On Mar 15, 2007, at 7:01 PM, Jim Tobias wrote:





I don't think we need "assistive technology service", because that's
usually
about client

evaluations, prescription of AT, etc. -- all accommodations (504) rather
than the mass

market products we're talking about in 508. Agreed?



On the other hand, I've always had a problem with the AT definition
as it
is. It would seem

to swallow up all accessibility, since a mainstream product with
accessibility features fits

that definition. In the spirit of 255, which has a cascading view of
accessibility -- first try to

make the mainstream product accessible, then use AT if the mainstream
approach won't

work -- I think we should make a distinction between AT and "AMT",
as Larry
Goldberg

named it: "accessible mainstream technology". Why keep the distinction?
Because the

two industry segments are so different; their markets are different;
their
products are usually

different; their funding sources are different; where expertise about
them
resides is different....

It's not for the reason some AT enthusiasts think, that somehow AT is a
lesser category. It's

that the distinction is an important one from so many perspectives.



******
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1 732.441.0831 voice/tty
skype jimtobias
+1 908.907.2387 mobile






_____


From: Hoffman, Allen [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 11:32 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft -
Definitions-Assistivetechnology service.

I concur, we should just include all the definitions and let the
access-board folks sort it out.







Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Deborah
Buck
Sent: Thursday, March 15, 2007 10:51 AM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft - Definitions
-Assistivetechnology service.

Here is my suggestion- maybe the way to approach this is to include
all of
the definitions. See my rationale below

Assistive Technology- The term 'assistive technology' means technology
designed to be utilized in an assistive technology device or assistive
technology service.



Assistive Technology Device - Any item, piece of equipment, or system,
whether acquired commercially, modified, or customized, that is commonly
used to increase, maintain, or improve functional capabilities of
individuals with disabilities.



Assistive Technology Service:

A service consisting of expanding the availability of access to
technology,
including electronic and information technology, to individuals with
disabilities. (This is a pared down version of the current
definition, but
it includes the applicable part (G) of the statutory definition of AT
Service see below)





I'm not sure why you think using the term and definition for AT
Device might
cause problems for screen readers that are software. Revisit the
definition
of AT Device- the emphasis is mine

Any item, piece of equipment, or system, whether acquired commercially,
modified, or customized, that is commonly used to increase, maintain, or
improve functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities.

The definition of AT Device is so broad that pretty much anything can be
considered an AT Device- you could drive a jumbo jet through that
definition
and under certain circumstances it could be considered AT. Under this
definition- software is considered a device.



The Definition of AT Services as included in the draft is a
significantly
modified version of the definition in the AT Act (see below). The
definition
of AT Services include- evaluation, purchasing, selecting, customizing,
coordination supporting therapies, training or technical assistance
for the
individual, training or technical assistance for professional and
maybe the
most pertinent to our discussion '(G) a service consisting of
expanding the
availability of access to technology, including electronic and
information
technology, to individuals with disabilities. (G was language that
was added
to the definition of AT Service as a result of the 2004 amendments to
the AT
Act). While referencing parts (A) - (F) might result in an expansion
of the
scope of Section 508 the new addition (G) is pertinent to 508.

'"(5) ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY SERVICE.-The term 'assistive technology
service'
means any service that directly assists an individual with a
disability in
the selection, acquisition, or

use of an assistive technology device. Such term includes-

'(A) the evaluation of the assistive technology needs of an
individual with
a disability, including a functional evaluation of the impact of the
provision of appropriate assistive technology and appropriate
services to
the individual in the customary environment of the individual;

'(B) a service consisting of purchasing, leasing, or otherwise
providing
for the acquisition of assistive technology devices by individuals with
disabilities;

'(C) a service consisting of selecting, designing, fitting,
customizing,
adapting, applying, maintaining, repairing, replacing, or donating
assistive
technology devices;

'(D) coordination and use of necessary therapies, interventions, or
services with assistive technology devices, such as therapies,
interventions, or services associated with education and rehabilitation
plans and programs;

'(E) training or technical assistance for an individual with a
disability
or, where appropriate, the family members, guardians, advocates, or
authorized representatives

of such an individual;

'(F) training or technical assistance for professionals (including
individuals providing education and rehabilitation services and entities
that manufacture or sell assistive technology devices), employers,
providers
of employment and training services, or other individuals who
provide-services to, employ, or are otherwise substantially involved
in the
major life functions of individuals with disabilities; and

'(G) a service consisting of expanding the availability of access to
technology, including electronic and information technology, to
individuals
with disabilities.





-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 11:28 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft - Definitions
-Assistivetechnology service.



I would concur about keeping AT and deleting AT Service.



As to AT DEVICE. That is fine but if we DO change the definition to AT
Device, then we can't use the term AT anywhere in the standard. We
would
have to use the term AT DEVICE (since that is what we defined). I
can see
that that might cause problems with AT like screen readers etc that are
software. So I'm not sure AT DEVICE will work.



You might say Assistive Technology (as used in this standard).



There will always be different definitions of this for different
applications.





Anyone got a better word for DEVICE that works everywhere we want to use
Assistive Technology?




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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Deborah
Buck
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:25 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft - Definitions -Assistive
technology service.

Thanks Greg-



It would be helpful for respondents to keep comments in separate
threads. If
you can remember try to label them Application, Exceptions or
Definitions-
this will help immensely to keep track of the responses and set up some
rules for pre-sorting so nothing gets overlooked or lost.



We currently are not using the term AT Service in the regs (that I
know of).
However the term "Assistive Technology" is currently used in the
regs; if
there is consensus to keep the term as Assistive Technology the
statutory
definition of AT is not consistent with what is currently in the 508
regs,
but includes devices and services- this would necessitate a
definition of AT
Service. If however, there is consensus to change the term to AT
Device I
see no reason to include the definition for AT Service. I actually think
adding the definition of service opens the door to services and supports
that are not a part of the scope and function of 508.



-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, March 14, 2007 8:10 PM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft - Assistive technology
service.



I will put comments in separate emails to facilitate discussion threads.





1) Assistive technology service.

a. There is no need to define a term that is not used in the
standard.
Are we using the term somewhere?




Gregg