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

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Mar 21 2007 11:10 PM
Subject: Re: SubpartA- Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and

Hmmmm
Are these E&IT?

The cash registers is a good one to discuss.
But thermometers and glucometers and stethescopes?

Are we talking about the cash register as an item for exemption category we
have been discussing for personal calculators?


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:56 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use
> to front. and
>
> I think we're a bit too stuck in the "office environment"
> trying to identify the kinds of products that need the
> "narrow use - readily substitutable"
> exception. We have issues in state government with things
> like cash registers, do we need to buy all of them with
> speech output options, large visual display screens, etc.?
> Same with small medical products like thermometers and
> glucometers (do they all need to talk)? Do all stethescopes
> need to be amplified? I'm sure there are many similar
> examples in other "non-office" type environments that are
> part of government agencies.
>
> Diane Golden
> NASCIO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
> Debbie Cook
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:22 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to
> front. and
>
>
> Thismay come down to someting like electronic office
> supplies. Calculators may abe about all that come into it
> frankly. Most agencies have contracts for cell phones, even
> small printersetc. The key would be user selectable if it
> exists. In my office we don't even get to select the
> calculators except from a particular group. Common practice
> is that employees routinely select these and in this case
> they would not all have to be accessible or could have
> different accessibility. But if procurement is tightly
> controlled, thn no prodeucts including the calculator would
> fly on this. So maybe the key is not the type of product as
> much as how procurement decisions are made.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 12:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft
> -(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and
>
>
> A desk phone is not what I would think of as "Personal use
> item that can be bought out of office funds". They are
> expensive and have to be part of the overall system. Also,
> people use more that just the phones on their own desks. The
> use them in common areas, meeting rooms, and even other offices.
>
>
>
> I thought this was meant to apply to things like
> 'calculators' and other small personal use items.
>
> Maybe we should first make a list of things that people think
> are and are not in this new category that we are thinking of
> creating an exception for.
> Then figure out how to describe it. And whether it is a good
> idea. I
> think it is a good idea - if we can write it so that it can't
> be misapplied easily.
>
> I would think of things in this category as including/excluding
>
>
> THINGS THAT ARE IN THE EXCEPTION
> - calculators
> - personal printer (under $300) (if everyone has a different
> one on their desk).
> - cell phones if people are allowed to pick their own (but
> not if they have to use one from a pool or all get the same one)
> - PDA if people are allowed to pick their own (but not if
> they have to use one from a pool or all get the same one)
>
> THINGS THAT ARE NOT
> - personal workstations
> - shared devices like
> -- fax
> -- copier
> -- printers
> -- Cell phones - if everyone has the same type
>
>
> Huh, interesting exercise. I'm not coming up with too many
> things for
> examples for the exception and it seems to depend on whether
> it is common practice for people to get their own type - or
> whether the management and perhaps IT system and support
> requires / wants everyone to use the same type.
>
>
> Other people, take a crack. What would your lists of
> examples look like.
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>

From: Debbie Cook
Date: Wed, Mar 21 2007 11:25 PM
Subject: Re: SubpartA- Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and

Digital medical products would probably be E&IT.

And the cash register introduces an entirely different concept. Now, in
addition to exempting the calculators et al, we're now talking about
exempting big items. (Some per centage of the copiers etc.) So I'm wondering
if it leaves a little band in the middle and where are the lines? I've been
very in favor of legitimizing some of what goes on already in the name of
defining and ultimately limiting it, but now we're working both ends. And
this worries me a lot. Why then should all of anything be accessible? If
we're only going to buy a couple of the accessible ones, who is going to
make them? What will it be worth to them? If there's no mass production, the
accessible ones will cost too much. And they won't be there when needed.
I haven't been inclined to be an extremest, but I would move that way rather
than to exempt everything except computer hardware and software.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and


Hmmmm
Are these E&IT?

The cash registers is a good one to discuss.
But thermometers and glucometers and stethescopes?

Are we talking about the cash register as an item for exemption category we
have been discussing for personal calculators?


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:56 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use
> to front. and
>
> I think we're a bit too stuck in the "office environment"
> trying to identify the kinds of products that need the
> "narrow use - readily substitutable"
> exception. We have issues in state government with things
> like cash registers, do we need to buy all of them with
> speech output options, large visual display screens, etc.?
> Same with small medical products like thermometers and
> glucometers (do they all need to talk)? Do all stethescopes
> need to be amplified? I'm sure there are many similar
> examples in other "non-office" type environments that are
> part of government agencies.
>
> Diane Golden
> NASCIO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
> Debbie Cook
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:22 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to
> front. and
>
>
> Thismay come down to someting like electronic office
> supplies. Calculators may abe about all that come into it
> frankly. Most agencies have contracts for cell phones, even
> small printersetc. The key would be user selectable if it
> exists. In my office we don't even get to select the
> calculators except from a particular group. Common practice
> is that employees routinely select these and in this case
> they would not all have to be accessible or could have
> different accessibility. But if procurement is tightly
> controlled, thn no prodeucts including the calculator would
> fly on this. So maybe the key is not the type of product as
> much as how procurement decisions are made.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 12:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft
> -(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and
>
>
> A desk phone is not what I would think of as "Personal use
> item that can be bought out of office funds". They are
> expensive and have to be part of the overall system. Also,
> people use more that just the phones on their own desks. The
> use them in common areas, meeting rooms, and even other offices.
>
>
>
> I thought this was meant to apply to things like
> 'calculators' and other small personal use items.
>
> Maybe we should first make a list of things that people think
> are and are not in this new category that we are thinking of
> creating an exception for.
> Then figure out how to describe it. And whether it is a good
> idea. I
> think it is a good idea - if we can write it so that it can't
> be misapplied easily.
>
> I would think of things in this category as including/excluding
>
>
> THINGS THAT ARE IN THE EXCEPTION
> - calculators
> - personal printer (under $300) (if everyone has a different
> one on their desk).
> - cell phones if people are allowed to pick their own (but
> not if they have to use one from a pool or all get the same one)
> - PDA if people are allowed to pick their own (but not if
> they have to use one from a pool or all get the same one)
>
> THINGS THAT ARE NOT
> - personal workstations
> - shared devices like
> -- fax
> -- copier
> -- printers
> -- Cell phones - if everyone has the same type
>
>
> Huh, interesting exercise. I'm not coming up with too many
> things for
> examples for the exception and it seems to depend on whether
> it is common practice for people to get their own type - or
> whether the management and perhaps IT system and support
> requires / wants everyone to use the same type.
>
>
> Other people, take a crack. What would your lists of
> examples look like.
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Thu, Mar 22 2007 7:35 AM
Subject: Re: SubpartA- Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and

I think you illustrate my thinking better than I did.
Scoping exceptions is critical, and while calculators might be more
complicated to figure out than they should be for some, it isn't the end
of the world. Then again, maybe $2 calculators can be more accessible?




Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Debbie
Cook
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 2:20 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta]SubpartA-
Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and

Digital medical products would probably be E&IT.

And the cash register introduces an entirely different concept. Now, in
addition to exempting the calculators et al, we're now talking about
exempting big items. (Some per centage of the copiers etc.) So I'm
wondering if it leaves a little band in the middle and where are the
lines? I've been very in favor of legitimizing some of what goes on
already in the name of defining and ultimately limiting it, but now
we're working both ends. And this worries me a lot. Why then should all
of anything be accessible? If we're only going to buy a couple of the
accessible ones, who is going to make them? What will it be worth to
them? If there's no mass production, the accessible ones will cost too
much. And they won't be there when needed.
I haven't been inclined to be an extremest, but I would move that way
rather than to exempt everything except computer hardware and software.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and


Hmmmm
Are these E&IT?

The cash registers is a good one to discuss.
But thermometers and glucometers and stethescopes?

Are we talking about the cash register as an item for exemption category
we have been discussing for personal calculators?


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
> Golden
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:56 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front.
> and
>
> I think we're a bit too stuck in the "office environment"
> trying to identify the kinds of products that need the "narrow use -
> readily substitutable"
> exception. We have issues in state government with things like cash
> registers, do we need to buy all of them with speech output options,
> large visual display screens, etc.?
> Same with small medical products like thermometers and glucometers (do

> they all need to talk)? Do all stethescopes need to be amplified?
> I'm sure there are many similar examples in other "non-office" type
> environments that are part of government agencies.
>
> Diane Golden
> NASCIO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Debbie
> Cook
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:22 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front.
> and
>
>
> Thismay come down to someting like electronic office supplies.
> Calculators may abe about all that come into it frankly. Most agencies

> have contracts for cell phones, even small printersetc. The key would
> be user selectable if it exists. In my office we don't even get to
> select the calculators except from a particular group. Common practice

> is that employees routinely select these and in this case they would
> not all have to be accessible or could have different accessibility.
> But if procurement is tightly controlled, thn no prodeucts including
> the calculator would fly on this. So maybe the key is not the type of
> product as much as how procurement decisions are made.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 12:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft
> -(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and
>
>
> A desk phone is not what I would think of as "Personal use item that
> can be bought out of office funds". They are expensive and have to be

> part of the overall system. Also, people use more that just the
> phones on their own desks. The use them in common areas, meeting
> rooms, and even other offices.
>
>
>
> I thought this was meant to apply to things like 'calculators' and
> other small personal use items.
>
> Maybe we should first make a list of things that people think are and
> are not in this new category that we are thinking of creating an
> exception for.
> Then figure out how to describe it. And whether it is a good
> idea. I
> think it is a good idea - if we can write it so that it can't be
> misapplied easily.
>
> I would think of things in this category as including/excluding
>
>
> THINGS THAT ARE IN THE EXCEPTION
> - calculators
> - personal printer (under $300) (if everyone has a different one on
> their desk).
> - cell phones if people are allowed to pick their own (but not if they

> have to use one from a pool or all get the same one)
> - PDA if people are allowed to pick their own (but not if they have to

> use one from a pool or all get the same one)
>
> THINGS THAT ARE NOT
> - personal workstations
> - shared devices like
> -- fax
> -- copier
> -- printers
> -- Cell phones - if everyone has the same type
>
>
> Huh, interesting exercise. I'm not coming up with too many
> things for
> examples for the exception and it seems to depend on whether it is
> common practice for people to get their own type - or whether the
> management and perhaps IT system and support requires / wants everyone

> to use the same type.
>
>
> Other people, take a crack. What would your lists of examples look
> like.
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>

From: terry.weaver@gsa.gov
Date: Thu, Mar 22 2007 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: SubpartA- Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front. and

I think we are breaking new ground here when we speak of medical devices.
Do we have a recommendation to replace the current definition in the
Standard under EIT? It says, midway down,:
The term does not include any equipment that contains embedded information
technology that is used as an integral part of the product, but the
principal function of which is not the acquisition, storage, manipulation,
management, movement, control, display, switching, interchange,
transmission, or reception of data or information. For example, HVAC
(heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) equipment such as thermostats
or temperature control devices, and medical equipment where information
technology is integral to its operation, are not information technology.
I don't think we've made any decisions about this part of the definition,
particularly because it is a definition not limited to 508. Is a digital
thermometer EIT?




"Hoffman, Allen" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent by: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
03/22/2007 10:30 AM
Please respond to
"TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >


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

Subject
Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA- Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,
Add Personal Use to front. and






I think you illustrate my thinking better than I did.
Scoping exceptions is critical, and while calculators might be more
complicated to figure out than they should be for some, it isn't the end
of the world. Then again, maybe $2 calculators can be more accessible?




Allen hoffman -- 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Debbie
Cook
Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2007 2:20 AM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta]SubpartA-
Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and

Digital medical products would probably be E&IT.

And the cash register introduces an entirely different concept. Now, in
addition to exempting the calculators et al, we're now talking about
exempting big items. (Some per centage of the copiers etc.) So I'm
wondering if it leaves a little band in the middle and where are the
lines? I've been very in favor of legitimizing some of what goes on
already in the name of defining and ultimately limiting it, but now
we're working both ends. And this worries me a lot. Why then should all
of anything be accessible? If we're only going to buy a couple of the
accessible ones, who is going to make them? What will it be worth to
them? If there's no mass production, the accessible ones will cost too
much. And they won't be there when needed.
I haven't been inclined to be an extremest, but I would move that way
rather than to exempt everything except computer hardware and software.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and


Hmmmm
Are these E&IT?

The cash registers is a good one to discuss.
But thermometers and glucometers and stethescopes?

Are we talking about the cash register as an item for exemption category
we have been discussing for personal calculators?


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
> Golden
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:56 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front.
> and
>
> I think we're a bit too stuck in the "office environment"
> trying to identify the kinds of products that need the "narrow use -
> readily substitutable"
> exception. We have issues in state government with things like cash
> registers, do we need to buy all of them with speech output options,
> large visual display screens, etc.?
> Same with small medical products like thermometers and glucometers (do

> they all need to talk)? Do all stethescopes need to be amplified?
> I'm sure there are many similar examples in other "non-office" type
> environments that are part of government agencies.
>
> Diane Golden
> NASCIO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Debbie
> Cook
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:22 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front.
> and
>
>
> Thismay come down to someting like electronic office supplies.
> Calculators may abe about all that come into it frankly. Most agencies

> have contracts for cell phones, even small printersetc. The key would
> be user selectable if it exists. In my office we don't even get to
> select the calculators except from a particular group. Common practice

> is that employees routinely select these and in this case they would
> not all have to be accessible or could have different accessibility.
> But if procurement is tightly controlled, thn no prodeucts including
> the calculator would fly on this. So maybe the key is not the type of
> product as much as how procurement decisions are made.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 12:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft
> -(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and
>
>
> A desk phone is not what I would think of as "Personal use item that
> can be bought out of office funds". They are expensive and have to be

> part of the overall system. Also, people use more that just the
> phones on their own desks. The use them in common areas, meeting
> rooms, and even other offices.
>
>
>
> I thought this was meant to apply to things like 'calculators' and
> other small personal use items.
>
> Maybe we should first make a list of things that people think are and
> are not in this new category that we are thinking of creating an
> exception for.
> Then figure out how to describe it. And whether it is a good
> idea. I
> think it is a good idea - if we can write it so that it can't be
> misapplied easily.
>
> I would think of things in this category as including/excluding
>
>
> THINGS THAT ARE IN THE EXCEPTION
> - calculators
> - personal printer (under $300) (if everyone has a different one on
> their desk).
> - cell phones if people are allowed to pick their own (but not if they

> have to use one from a pool or all get the same one)
> - PDA if people are allowed to pick their own (but not if they have to

> use one from a pool or all get the same one)
>
> THINGS THAT ARE NOT
> - personal workstations
> - shared devices like
> -- fax
> -- copier
> -- printers
> -- Cell phones - if everyone has the same type
>
>
> Huh, interesting exercise. I'm not coming up with too many
> things for
> examples for the exception and it seems to depend on whether it is
> common practice for people to get their own type - or whether the
> management and perhaps IT system and support requires / wants everyone

> to use the same type.
>
>
> Other people, take a crack. What would your lists of examples look
> like.
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Wed, Mar 28 2007 1:40 PM
Subject: Re: SubpartA- Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and

I agree with this. It might be prudent to flesh this out into a
category in order to keep it in play. If cell phones and pagers can
be inccludeed, digital medical devices and point of ssale devices
certainly can.

On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:19 AM, Debbie Cook wrote:

Digital medical products would probably be E&IT.

And the cash register introduces an entirely different concept. Now, in
addition to exempting the calculators et al, we're now talking about
exempting big items. (Some per centage of the copiers etc.) So I'm
wondering
if it leaves a little band in the middle and where are the lines?
I've been
very in favor of legitimizing some of what goes on already in the
name of
defining and ultimately limiting it, but now we're working both ends.
And
this worries me a lot. Why then should all of anything be accessible? If
we're only going to buy a couple of the accessible ones, who is going to
make them? What will it be worth to them? If there's no mass
production, the
accessible ones will cost too much. And they won't be there when needed.
I haven't been inclined to be an extremest, but I would move that way
rather
than to exempt everything except computer hardware and software.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and


Hmmmm
Are these E&IT?

The cash registers is a good one to discuss.
But thermometers and glucometers and stethescopes?

Are we talking about the cash register as an item for exemption
category we
have been discussing for personal calculators?


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:56 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use
> to front. and
>
> I think we're a bit too stuck in the "office environment"
> trying to identify the kinds of products that need the
> "narrow use - readily substitutable"
> exception. We have issues in state government with things
> like cash registers, do we need to buy all of them with
> speech output options, large visual display screens, etc.?
> Same with small medical products like thermometers and
> glucometers (do they all need to talk)? Do all stethescopes
> need to be amplified? I'm sure there are many similar
> examples in other "non-office" type environments that are
> part of government agencies.
>
> Diane Golden
> NASCIO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
> Debbie Cook
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:22 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to
> front. and
>
>
> Thismay come down to someting like electronic office
> supplies. Calculators may abe about all that come into it
> frankly. Most agencies have contracts for cell phones, even
> small printersetc. The key would be user selectable if it
> exists. In my office we don't even get to select the
> calculators except from a particular group. Common practice
> is that employees routinely select these and in this case
> they would not all have to be accessible or could have
> different accessibility. But if procurement is tightly
> controlled, thn no prodeucts including the calculator would
> fly on this. So maybe the key is not the type of product as
> much as how procurement decisions are made.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 12:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft
> -(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and
>
>
> A desk phone is not what I would think of as "Personal use
> item that can be bought out of office funds". They are
> expensive and have to be part of the overall system. Also,
> people use more that just the phones on their own desks. The
> use them in common areas, meeting rooms, and even other offices.
>
>
>
> I thought this was meant to apply to things like
> 'calculators' and other small personal use items.
>
> Maybe we should first make a list of things that people think
> are and are not in this new category that we are thinking of
> creating an exception for.
> Then figure out how to describe it. And whether it is a good
> idea. I
> think it is a good idea - if we can write it so that it can't
> be misapplied easily.
>
> I would think of things in this category as including/excluding
>
>
> THINGS THAT ARE IN THE EXCEPTION
> - calculators
> - personal printer (under $300) (if everyone has a different
> one on their desk).
> - cell phones if people are allowed to pick their own (but
> not if they have to use one from a pool or all get the same one)
> - PDA if people are allowed to pick their own (but not if
> they have to use one from a pool or all get the same one)
>
> THINGS THAT ARE NOT
> - personal workstations
> - shared devices like
> -- fax
> -- copier
> -- printers
> -- Cell phones - if everyone has the same type
>
>
> Huh, interesting exercise. I'm not coming up with too many
> things for
> examples for the exception and it seems to depend on whether
> it is common practice for people to get their own type - or
> whether the management and perhaps IT system and support
> requires / wants everyone to use the same type.
>
>
> Other people, take a crack. What would your lists of
> examples look like.
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>

From: Deborah Buck
Date: Wed, Mar 28 2007 2:00 PM
Subject: Re: SubpartA- Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front. and

So on the low end of this - all digital ear thermometers that are purchased
for use at Walter Reed Hospital as a federal facility would have to be
talking digital thermometers and on the other end all spectographs or other
devices that measure light, sound, masses, etc. would have to be accessible?

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David Poehlman
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:39 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front. and

I agree with this. It might be prudent to flesh this out into a
category in order to keep it in play. If cell phones and pagers can
be inccludeed, digital medical devices and point of ssale devices
certainly can.

On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:19 AM, Debbie Cook wrote:

Digital medical products would probably be E&IT.

And the cash register introduces an entirely different concept. Now, in
addition to exempting the calculators et al, we're now talking about
exempting big items. (Some per centage of the copiers etc.) So I'm
wondering
if it leaves a little band in the middle and where are the lines?
I've been
very in favor of legitimizing some of what goes on already in the
name of
defining and ultimately limiting it, but now we're working both ends.
And
this worries me a lot. Why then should all of anything be accessible? If
we're only going to buy a couple of the accessible ones, who is going to
make them? What will it be worth to them? If there's no mass
production, the
accessible ones will cost too much. And they won't be there when needed.
I haven't been inclined to be an extremest, but I would move that way
rather
than to exempt everything except computer hardware and software.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and


Hmmmm
Are these E&IT?

The cash registers is a good one to discuss.
But thermometers and glucometers and stethescopes?

Are we talking about the cash register as an item for exemption
category we
have been discussing for personal calculators?


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:56 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use
> to front. and
>
> I think we're a bit too stuck in the "office environment"
> trying to identify the kinds of products that need the
> "narrow use - readily substitutable"
> exception. We have issues in state government with things
> like cash registers, do we need to buy all of them with
> speech output options, large visual display screens, etc.?
> Same with small medical products like thermometers and
> glucometers (do they all need to talk)? Do all stethescopes
> need to be amplified? I'm sure there are many similar
> examples in other "non-office" type environments that are
> part of government agencies.
>
> Diane Golden
> NASCIO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
> Debbie Cook
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:22 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to
> front. and
>
>
> Thismay come down to someting like electronic office
> supplies. Calculators may abe about all that come into it
> frankly. Most agencies have contracts for cell phones, even
> small printersetc. The key would be user selectable if it
> exists. In my office we don't even get to select the
> calculators except from a particular group. Common practice
> is that employees routinely select these and in this case
> they would not all have to be accessible or could have
> different accessibility. But if procurement is tightly
> controlled, thn no prodeucts including the calculator would
> fly on this. So maybe the key is not the type of product as
> much as how procurement decisions are made.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 12:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft
> -(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and
>
>
> A desk phone is not what I would think of as "Personal use
> item that can be bought out of office funds". They are
> expensive and have to be part of the overall system. Also,
> people use more that just the phones on their own desks. The
> use them in common areas, meeting rooms, and even other offices.
>
>
>
> I thought this was meant to apply to things like
> 'calculators' and other small personal use items.
>
> Maybe we should first make a list of things that people think
> are and are not in this new category that we are thinking of
> creating an exception for.
> Then figure out how to describe it. And whether it is a good
> idea. I
> think it is a good idea - if we can write it so that it can't
> be misapplied easily.
>
> I would think of things in this category as including/excluding
>
>
> THINGS THAT ARE IN THE EXCEPTION
> - calculators
> - personal printer (under $300) (if everyone has a different
> one on their desk).
> - cell phones if people are allowed to pick their own (but
> not if they have to use one from a pool or all get the same one)
> - PDA if people are allowed to pick their own (but not if
> they have to use one from a pool or all get the same one)
>
> THINGS THAT ARE NOT
> - personal workstations
> - shared devices like
> -- fax
> -- copier
> -- printers
> -- Cell phones - if everyone has the same type
>
>
> Huh, interesting exercise. I'm not coming up with too many
> things for
> examples for the exception and it seems to depend on whether
> it is common practice for people to get their own type - or
> whether the management and perhaps IT system and support
> requires / wants everyone to use the same type.
>
>
> Other people, take a crack. What would your lists of
> examples look like.
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Wed, Mar 28 2007 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: SubpartA- Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and

are all computers equipped with a screen reader?

On Mar 28, 2007, at 4:55 PM, Deborah Buck wrote:

So on the low end of this - all digital ear thermometers that are
purchased
for use at Walter Reed Hospital as a federal facility would have to be
talking digital thermometers and on the other end all spectographs or
other
devices that measure light, sound, masses, etc. would have to be
accessible?

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
Poehlman
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:39 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front.
and

I agree with this. It might be prudent to flesh this out into a
category in order to keep it in play. If cell phones and pagers can
be inccludeed, digital medical devices and point of ssale devices
certainly can.

On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:19 AM, Debbie Cook wrote:

Digital medical products would probably be E&IT.

And the cash register introduces an entirely different concept. Now, in
addition to exempting the calculators et al, we're now talking about
exempting big items. (Some per centage of the copiers etc.) So I'm
wondering
if it leaves a little band in the middle and where are the lines?
I've been
very in favor of legitimizing some of what goes on already in the
name of
defining and ultimately limiting it, but now we're working both ends.
And
this worries me a lot. Why then should all of anything be accessible? If
we're only going to buy a couple of the accessible ones, who is going to
make them? What will it be worth to them? If there's no mass
production, the
accessible ones will cost too much. And they won't be there when needed.
I haven't been inclined to be an extremest, but I would move that way
rather
than to exempt everything except computer hardware and software.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and


Hmmmm
Are these E&IT?

The cash registers is a good one to discuss.
But thermometers and glucometers and stethescopes?

Are we talking about the cash register as an item for exemption
category we
have been discussing for personal calculators?


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:56 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use
> to front. and
>
> I think we're a bit too stuck in the "office environment"
> trying to identify the kinds of products that need the
> "narrow use - readily substitutable"
> exception. We have issues in state government with things
> like cash registers, do we need to buy all of them with
> speech output options, large visual display screens, etc.?
> Same with small medical products like thermometers and
> glucometers (do they all need to talk)? Do all stethescopes
> need to be amplified? I'm sure there are many similar
> examples in other "non-office" type environments that are
> part of government agencies.
>
> Diane Golden
> NASCIO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
> Debbie Cook
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:22 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to
> front. and
>
>
> Thismay come down to someting like electronic office
> supplies. Calculators may abe about all that come into it
> frankly. Most agencies have contracts for cell phones, even
> small printersetc. The key would be user selectable if it
> exists. In my office we don't even get to select the
> calculators except from a particular group. Common practice
> is that employees routinely select these and in this case
> they would not all have to be accessible or could have
> different accessibility. But if procurement is tightly
> controlled, thn no prodeucts including the calculator would
> fly on this. So maybe the key is not the type of product as
> much as how procurement decisions are made.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 12:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft
> -(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and
>
>
> A desk phone is not what I would think of as "Personal use
> item that can be bought out of office funds". They are
> expensive and have to be part of the overall system. Also,
> people use more that just the phones on their own desks. The
> use them in common areas, meeting rooms, and even other offices.
>
>
>
> I thought this was meant to apply to things like
> 'calculators' and other small personal use items.
>
> Maybe we should first make a list of things that people think
> are and are not in this new category that we are thinking of
> creating an exception for.
> Then figure out how to describe it. And whether it is a good
> idea. I
> think it is a good idea - if we can write it so that it can't
> be misapplied easily.
>
> I would think of things in this category as including/excluding
>
>
> THINGS THAT ARE IN THE EXCEPTION
> - calculators
> - personal printer (under $300) (if everyone has a different
> one on their desk).
> - cell phones if people are allowed to pick their own (but
> not if they have to use one from a pool or all get the same one)
> - PDA if people are allowed to pick their own (but not if
> they have to use one from a pool or all get the same one)
>
> THINGS THAT ARE NOT
> - personal workstations
> - shared devices like
> -- fax
> -- copier
> -- printers
> -- Cell phones - if everyone has the same type
>
>
> Huh, interesting exercise. I'm not coming up with too many
> things for
> examples for the exception and it seems to depend on whether
> it is common practice for people to get their own type - or
> whether the management and perhaps IT system and support
> requires / wants everyone to use the same type.
>
>
> Other people, take a crack. What would your lists of
> examples look like.
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>

From: Deborah Buck
Date: Wed, Mar 28 2007 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: SubpartA- Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front. and

No, all computers are not equipped with screen readers, but then neither is
a copier - it must be accessible without the attachment of AT (screen
reader). It goes back to the discussion of calculators and must all
calculators be talking calculators- it's a closed product. If you were to
consider medical/research devices as E&IT wouldn't many be considered closed
products and required to have accessibility built-in?

Medical devices and Heating, ventilation and air conditioning devices (HVAC)
are currently not included under the definition of E&IT? Are you suggesting
that we make a recommendation to the Access Bd to change the definition of
E&IT to include medical devices? And if medical devices are considered E&IT,
what about HVAC?


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David Poehlman
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:42 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front. and

are all computers equipped with a screen reader?

On Mar 28, 2007, at 4:55 PM, Deborah Buck wrote:

So on the low end of this - all digital ear thermometers that are
purchased
for use at Walter Reed Hospital as a federal facility would have to be
talking digital thermometers and on the other end all spectographs or
other
devices that measure light, sound, masses, etc. would have to be
accessible?

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
Poehlman
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:39 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front.
and

I agree with this. It might be prudent to flesh this out into a
category in order to keep it in play. If cell phones and pagers can
be inccludeed, digital medical devices and point of ssale devices
certainly can.

On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:19 AM, Debbie Cook wrote:

Digital medical products would probably be E&IT.

And the cash register introduces an entirely different concept. Now, in
addition to exempting the calculators et al, we're now talking about
exempting big items. (Some per centage of the copiers etc.) So I'm
wondering
if it leaves a little band in the middle and where are the lines?
I've been
very in favor of legitimizing some of what goes on already in the
name of
defining and ultimately limiting it, but now we're working both ends.
And
this worries me a lot. Why then should all of anything be accessible? If
we're only going to buy a couple of the accessible ones, who is going to
make them? What will it be worth to them? If there's no mass
production, the
accessible ones will cost too much. And they won't be there when needed.
I haven't been inclined to be an extremest, but I would move that way
rather
than to exempt everything except computer hardware and software.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and


Hmmmm
Are these E&IT?

The cash registers is a good one to discuss.
But thermometers and glucometers and stethescopes?

Are we talking about the cash register as an item for exemption
category we
have been discussing for personal calculators?


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:56 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use
> to front. and
>
> I think we're a bit too stuck in the "office environment"
> trying to identify the kinds of products that need the
> "narrow use - readily substitutable"
> exception. We have issues in state government with things
> like cash registers, do we need to buy all of them with
> speech output options, large visual display screens, etc.?
> Same with small medical products like thermometers and
> glucometers (do they all need to talk)? Do all stethescopes
> need to be amplified? I'm sure there are many similar
> examples in other "non-office" type environments that are
> part of government agencies.
>
> Diane Golden
> NASCIO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
> Debbie Cook
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:22 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to
> front. and
>
>
> Thismay come down to someting like electronic office
> supplies. Calculators may abe about all that come into it
> frankly. Most agencies have contracts for cell phones, even
> small printersetc. The key would be user selectable if it
> exists. In my office we don't even get to select the
> calculators except from a particular group. Common practice
> is that employees routinely select these and in this case
> they would not all have to be accessible or could have
> different accessibility. But if procurement is tightly
> controlled, thn no prodeucts including the calculator would
> fly on this. So maybe the key is not the type of product as
> much as how procurement decisions are made.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 12:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft
> -(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and
>
>
> A desk phone is not what I would think of as "Personal use
> item that can be bought out of office funds". They are
> expensive and have to be part of the overall system. Also,
> people use more that just the phones on their own desks. The
> use them in common areas, meeting rooms, and even other offices.
>
>
>
> I thought this was meant to apply to things like
> 'calculators' and other small personal use items.
>
> Maybe we should first make a list of things that people think
> are and are not in this new category that we are thinking of
> creating an exception for.
> Then figure out how to describe it. And whether it is a good
> idea. I
> think it is a good idea - if we can write it so that it can't
> be misapplied easily.
>
> I would think of things in this category as including/excluding
>
>
> THINGS THAT ARE IN THE EXCEPTION
> - calculators
> - personal printer (under $300) (if everyone has a different
> one on their desk).
> - cell phones if people are allowed to pick their own (but
> not if they have to use one from a pool or all get the same one)
> - PDA if people are allowed to pick their own (but not if
> they have to use one from a pool or all get the same one)
>
> THINGS THAT ARE NOT
> - personal workstations
> - shared devices like
> -- fax
> -- copier
> -- printers
> -- Cell phones - if everyone has the same type
>
>
> Huh, interesting exercise. I'm not coming up with too many
> things for
> examples for the exception and it seems to depend on whether
> it is common practice for people to get their own type - or
> whether the management and perhaps IT system and support
> requires / wants everyone to use the same type.
>
>
> Other people, take a crack. What would your lists of
> examples look like.
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>

From: David Poehlman
Date: Thu, Mar 29 2007 4:25 AM
Subject: Re: SubpartA- Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and

Somewhere, it was suggested that a provision be made to deal with
this in much the same way as alternate forrmats are dealt with., on
an as needed basis. I fear that if something is not put into the
standards to cover this type off information bearing and gathering
equipment, some willl likely loos or not be aable to do the work that
require the devices. I would say that the standards need to be there
and a manufacturer needs to demonstrate the ability to deliver on the
standards a product which if required can meet this need. And, yes,
the crux of this is that since they are going digital and storing and
transmitting information in addition to just displaying it that this
is electronic because it uses that power and information ttechnology
because it utillizes, stores, sends and sometimes receives
information. Tough? Yes, needed? Yes.

On Mar 28, 2007, at 7:39 PM, Deborah Buck wrote:

No, all computers are not equipped with screen readers, but then
neither is
a copier - it must be accessible without the attachment of AT (screen
reader). It goes back to the discussion of calculators and must all
calculators be talking calculators- it's a closed product. If you
were to
consider medical/research devices as E&IT wouldn't many be considered
closed
products and required to have accessibility built-in?

Medical devices and Heating, ventilation and air conditioning devices
(HVAC)
are currently not included under the definition of E&IT? Are you
suggesting
that we make a recommendation to the Access Bd to change the
definition of
E&IT to include medical devices? And if medical devices are
considered E&IT,
what about HVAC?


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
Poehlman
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 6:42 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front.
and

are all computers equipped with a screen reader?

On Mar 28, 2007, at 4:55 PM, Deborah Buck wrote:

So on the low end of this - all digital ear thermometers that are
purchased
for use at Walter Reed Hospital as a federal facility would have to be
talking digital thermometers and on the other end all spectographs or
other
devices that measure light, sound, masses, etc. would have to be
accessible?

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of David
Poehlman
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:39 PM
To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front.
and

I agree with this. It might be prudent to flesh this out into a
category in order to keep it in play. If cell phones and pagers can
be inccludeed, digital medical devices and point of ssale devices
certainly can.

On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:19 AM, Debbie Cook wrote:

Digital medical products would probably be E&IT.

And the cash register introduces an entirely different concept. Now, in
addition to exempting the calculators et al, we're now talking about
exempting big items. (Some per centage of the copiers etc.) So I'm
wondering
if it leaves a little band in the middle and where are the lines?
I've been
very in favor of legitimizing some of what goes on already in the
name of
defining and ultimately limiting it, but now we're working both ends.
And
this worries me a lot. Why then should all of anything be accessible? If
we're only going to buy a couple of the accessible ones, who is going to
make them? What will it be worth to them? If there's no mass
production, the
accessible ones will cost too much. And they won't be there when needed.
I haven't been inclined to be an extremest, but I would move that way
rather
than to exempt everything except computer hardware and software.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
< = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:08 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and


Hmmmm
Are these E&IT?

The cash registers is a good one to discuss.
But thermometers and glucometers and stethescopes?

Are we talking about the cash register as an item for exemption
category we
have been discussing for personal calculators?


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:56 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use
> to front. and
>
> I think we're a bit too stuck in the "office environment"
> trying to identify the kinds of products that need the
> "narrow use - readily substitutable"
> exception. We have issues in state government with things
> like cash registers, do we need to buy all of them with
> speech output options, large visual display screens, etc.?
> Same with small medical products like thermometers and
> glucometers (do they all need to talk)? Do all stethescopes
> need to be amplified? I'm sure there are many similar
> examples in other "non-office" type environments that are
> part of government agencies.
>
> Diane Golden
> NASCIO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
> Debbie Cook
> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:22 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to
> front. and
>
>
> Thismay come down to someting like electronic office
> supplies. Calculators may abe about all that come into it
> frankly. Most agencies have contracts for cell phones, even
> small printersetc. The key would be user selectable if it
> exists. In my office we don't even get to select the
> calculators except from a particular group. Common practice
> is that employees routinely select these and in this case
> they would not all have to be accessible or could have
> different accessibility. But if procurement is tightly
> controlled, thn no prodeucts including the calculator would
> fly on this. So maybe the key is not the type of product as
> much as how procurement decisions are made.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 12:02 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft
> -(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and
>
>
> A desk phone is not what I would think of as "Personal use
> item that can be bought out of office funds". They are
> expensive and have to be part of the overall system. Also,
> people use more that just the phones on their own desks. The
> use them in common areas, meeting rooms, and even other offices.
>
>
>
> I thought this was meant to apply to things like
> 'calculators' and other small personal use items.
>
> Maybe we should first make a list of things that people think
> are and are not in this new category that we are thinking of
> creating an exception for.
> Then figure out how to describe it. And whether it is a good
> idea. I
> think it is a good idea - if we can write it so that it can't
> be misapplied easily.
>
> I would think of things in this category as including/excluding
>
>
> THINGS THAT ARE IN THE EXCEPTION
> - calculators
> - personal printer (under $300) (if everyone has a different
> one on their desk).
> - cell phones if people are allowed to pick their own (but
> not if they have to use one from a pool or all get the same one)
> - PDA if people are allowed to pick their own (but not if
> they have to use one from a pool or all get the same one)
>
> THINGS THAT ARE NOT
> - personal workstations
> - shared devices like
> -- fax
> -- copier
> -- printers
> -- Cell phones - if everyone has the same type
>
>
> Huh, interesting exercise. I'm not coming up with too many
> things for
> examples for the exception and it seems to depend on whether
> it is common practice for people to get their own type - or
> whether the management and perhaps IT system and support
> requires / wants everyone to use the same type.
>
>
> Other people, take a crack. What would your lists of
> examples look like.
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Mar 29 2007 7:25 AM
Subject: Re: SubpartA- Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and

I think "point of sale" (POS) devices would be E&IT. They are data input
and processing devices.

But they shouldn't be in the category for this exception. They aren't
personal devices. We wouldn't suggest that people bring their own or have
point of sale devices purchased for their personal use.



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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> David Poehlman
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 3:39 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use
> to front. and
>
> I agree with this. It might be prudent to flesh this out
> into a category in order to keep it in play. If cell phones
> and pagers can be inccludeed, digital medical devices and
> point of ssale devices certainly can.
>
> On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:19 AM, Debbie Cook wrote:
>
> Digital medical products would probably be E&IT.
>
> And the cash register introduces an entirely different
> concept. Now, in addition to exempting the calculators et al,
> we're now talking about exempting big items. (Some per
> centage of the copiers etc.) So I'm wondering if it leaves a
> little band in the middle and where are the lines?
> I've been
> very in favor of legitimizing some of what goes on already in
> the name of defining and ultimately limiting it, but now
> we're working both ends.
> And
> this worries me a lot. Why then should all of anything be
> accessible? If we're only going to buy a couple of the
> accessible ones, who is going to make them? What will it be
> worth to them? If there's no mass production, the accessible
> ones will cost too much. And they won't be there when needed.
> I haven't been inclined to be an extremest, but I would move
> that way rather than to exempt everything except computer
> hardware and software.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to
> front. and
>
>
> Hmmmm
> Are these E&IT?
>
> The cash registers is a good one to discuss.
> But thermometers and glucometers and stethescopes?
>
> Are we talking about the cash register as an item for
> exemption category we have been discussing for personal calculators?
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
> > Golden
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:56 PM
> > To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> > Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use
> to front.
> > and
> >
> > I think we're a bit too stuck in the "office environment"
> > trying to identify the kinds of products that need the
> "narrow use -
> > readily substitutable"
> > exception. We have issues in state government with things
> like cash
> > registers, do we need to buy all of them with speech output
> options,
> > large visual display screens, etc.?
> > Same with small medical products like thermometers and
> glucometers (do
> > they all need to talk)? Do all stethescopes need to be amplified?
> > I'm sure there are many similar examples in other "non-office" type
> > environments that are part of government agencies.
> >
> > Diane Golden
> > NASCIO
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Debbie
> > Cook
> > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:22 PM
> > To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> > Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use
> to front.
> > and
> >
> >
> > Thismay come down to someting like electronic office supplies.
> > Calculators may abe about all that come into it frankly.
> Most agencies
> > have contracts for cell phones, even small printersetc. The
> key would
> > be user selectable if it exists. In my office we don't even get to
> > select the calculators except from a particular group.
> Common practice
> > is that employees routinely select these and in this case
> they would
> > not all have to be accessible or could have different
> accessibility.
> > But if procurement is tightly controlled, thn no prodeucts
> including
> > the calculator would fly on this. So maybe the key is not
> the type of
> > product as much as how procurement decisions are made.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 12:02 PM
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft
> > -(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and
> >
> >
> > A desk phone is not what I would think of as "Personal use
> item that
> > can be bought out of office funds". They are expensive and
> have to be
> > part of the overall system. Also, people use more that just the
> > phones on their own desks. The use them in common areas, meeting
> > rooms, and even other offices.
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought this was meant to apply to things like 'calculators' and
> > other small personal use items.
> >
> > Maybe we should first make a list of things that people
> think are and
> > are not in this new category that we are thinking of creating an
> > exception for.
> > Then figure out how to describe it. And whether it is a good
> > idea. I
> > think it is a good idea - if we can write it so that it can't be
> > misapplied easily.
> >
> > I would think of things in this category as including/excluding
> >
> >
> > THINGS THAT ARE IN THE EXCEPTION
> > - calculators
> > - personal printer (under $300) (if everyone has a different one on
> > their desk).
> > - cell phones if people are allowed to pick their own (but
> not if they
> > have to use one from a pool or all get the same one)
> > - PDA if people are allowed to pick their own (but not if
> they have to
> > use one from a pool or all get the same one)
> >
> > THINGS THAT ARE NOT
> > - personal workstations
> > - shared devices like
> > -- fax
> > -- copier
> > -- printers
> > -- Cell phones - if everyone has the same type
> >
> >
> > Huh, interesting exercise. I'm not coming up with too many
> > things for
> > examples for the exception and it seems to depend on whether it is
> > common practice for people to get their own type - or whether the
> > management and perhaps IT system and support requires /
> wants everyone
> > to use the same type.
> >
> >
> > Other people, take a crack. What would your lists of
> examples look
> > like.
> >
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Mar 29 2007 7:30 AM
Subject: Re: SubpartA- Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and

We need to first get a ruling on whether things like thermometers are
covered. I don't believe they are.

I can't remember now but are calculators the only things discussed that
looks like it fits in this category?

Cash registers wouldn't. Thermometers etc aren't E&IT I don't think.

What else did we have?

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> David Poehlman
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 5:42 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use
> to front. and
>
> are all computers equipped with a screen reader?
>
> On Mar 28, 2007, at 4:55 PM, Deborah Buck wrote:
>
> So on the low end of this - all digital ear thermometers that
> are purchased for use at Walter Reed Hospital as a federal
> facility would have to be talking digital thermometers and on
> the other end all spectographs or other devices that measure
> light, sound, masses, etc. would have to be accessible?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> David Poehlman
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:39 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use
> to front.
> and
>
> I agree with this. It might be prudent to flesh this out
> into a category in order to keep it in play. If cell phones
> and pagers can be inccludeed, digital medical devices and
> point of ssale devices certainly can.
>
> On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:19 AM, Debbie Cook wrote:
>
> Digital medical products would probably be E&IT.
>
> And the cash register introduces an entirely different
> concept. Now, in addition to exempting the calculators et al,
> we're now talking about exempting big items. (Some per
> centage of the copiers etc.) So I'm wondering if it leaves a
> little band in the middle and where are the lines?
> I've been
> very in favor of legitimizing some of what goes on already in
> the name of defining and ultimately limiting it, but now
> we're working both ends.
> And
> this worries me a lot. Why then should all of anything be
> accessible? If we're only going to buy a couple of the
> accessible ones, who is going to make them? What will it be
> worth to them? If there's no mass production, the accessible
> ones will cost too much. And they won't be there when needed.
> I haven't been inclined to be an extremest, but I would move
> that way rather than to exempt everything except computer
> hardware and software.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to
> front. and
>
>
> Hmmmm
> Are these E&IT?
>
> The cash registers is a good one to discuss.
> But thermometers and glucometers and stethescopes?
>
> Are we talking about the cash register as an item for
> exemption category we have been discussing for personal calculators?
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
> > Golden
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:56 PM
> > To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> > Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use
> to front.
> > and
> >
> > I think we're a bit too stuck in the "office environment"
> > trying to identify the kinds of products that need the
> "narrow use -
> > readily substitutable"
> > exception. We have issues in state government with things
> like cash
> > registers, do we need to buy all of them with speech output
> options,
> > large visual display screens, etc.?
> > Same with small medical products like thermometers and
> glucometers (do
> > they all need to talk)? Do all stethescopes need to be amplified?
> > I'm sure there are many similar examples in other "non-office" type
> > environments that are part of government agencies.
> >
> > Diane Golden
> > NASCIO
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Debbie
> > Cook
> > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:22 PM
> > To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> > Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use
> to front.
> > and
> >
> >
> > Thismay come down to someting like electronic office supplies.
> > Calculators may abe about all that come into it frankly.
> Most agencies
> > have contracts for cell phones, even small printersetc. The
> key would
> > be user selectable if it exists. In my office we don't even get to
> > select the calculators except from a particular group.
> Common practice
> > is that employees routinely select these and in this case
> they would
> > not all have to be accessible or could have different
> accessibility.
> > But if procurement is tightly controlled, thn no prodeucts
> including
> > the calculator would fly on this. So maybe the key is not
> the type of
> > product as much as how procurement decisions are made.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 12:02 PM
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft
> > -(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and
> >
> >
> > A desk phone is not what I would think of as "Personal use
> item that
> > can be bought out of office funds". They are expensive and
> have to be
> > part of the overall system. Also, people use more that just the
> > phones on their own desks. The use them in common areas, meeting
> > rooms, and even other offices.
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought this was meant to apply to things like 'calculators' and
> > other small personal use items.
> >
> > Maybe we should first make a list of things that people
> think are and
> > are not in this new category that we are thinking of creating an
> > exception for.
> > Then figure out how to describe it. And whether it is a good
> > idea. I
> > think it is a good idea - if we can write it so that it can't be
> > misapplied easily.
> >
> > I would think of things in this category as including/excluding
> >
> >
> > THINGS THAT ARE IN THE EXCEPTION
> > - calculators
> > - personal printer (under $300) (if everyone has a different one on
> > their desk).
> > - cell phones if people are allowed to pick their own (but
> not if they
> > have to use one from a pool or all get the same one)
> > - PDA if people are allowed to pick their own (but not if
> they have to
> > use one from a pool or all get the same one)
> >
> > THINGS THAT ARE NOT
> > - personal workstations
> > - shared devices like
> > -- fax
> > -- copier
> > -- printers
> > -- Cell phones - if everyone has the same type
> >
> >
> > Huh, interesting exercise. I'm not coming up with too many
> > things for
> > examples for the exception and it seems to depend on whether it is
> > common practice for people to get their own type - or whether the
> > management and perhaps IT system and support requires /
> wants everyone
> > to use the same type.
> >
> >
> > Other people, take a crack. What would your lists of
> examples look
> > like.
> >
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >

From: tom brett
Date: Thu, Mar 29 2007 7:45 AM
Subject: Re: SubpartA- Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and

What is covered is defined in the Clinger-Cohen Act. The following was
copied from the U of Wash web site
(http://www.washington.edu/accessit/articles?106)


Electronic and information technology. Includes information technology
and any equipment or interconnected system or subsystem of equipment, that
is used in the creation, conversion, or duplication of data or information.
The term electronic and information technology includes, but is not limited
to, telecommunications products (such as telephones), information kiosks and
transaction machines, World Wide Web sites, multimedia, and office equipment
such as copiers and fax machines. The term does not include any equipment
that contains embedded information technology that is used as an integral
part of the product, but the principal function of which is not the
acquisition, storage, manipulation, management, movement, control, display,
switching, interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information.
For example, HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) equipment
such as thermostats or temperature control devices, and medical equipment
where information technology is integral to its operation, are not
information technology.

Information technology. Any equipment or interconnected system or
subsystem of equipment, that is used in the automatic acquisition, storage,
manipulation, management, movement, control, display, switching,
interchange, transmission, or reception of data or information. The term
'information technology' includes computers, ancillary equipment, software,
firmware and similar procedures, services (including support services), and
related resources.


Tom Brett, ATACP
Section 508/Section 255 Specialist,
888.896.8579
Voice/TTY: 301.942.9768
TCS Associates, an Abacus-N-Bytes, Inc. Company
8(a)/MBE Certified
GSA Schedule GS-35F-0512L
www.tcsassociates.com
Fax: 301.942.9110


-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2007 9:29 AM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use to front. and

We need to first get a ruling on whether things like thermometers are
covered. I don't believe they are.

I can't remember now but are calculators the only things discussed that
looks like it fits in this category?

Cash registers wouldn't. Thermometers etc aren't E&IT I don't think.

What else did we have?

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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> David Poehlman
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 5:42 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use
> to front. and
>
> are all computers equipped with a screen reader?
>
> On Mar 28, 2007, at 4:55 PM, Deborah Buck wrote:
>
> So on the low end of this - all digital ear thermometers that
> are purchased for use at Walter Reed Hospital as a federal
> facility would have to be talking digital thermometers and on
> the other end all spectographs or other devices that measure
> light, sound, masses, etc. would have to be accessible?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> David Poehlman
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 4:39 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use
> to front.
> and
>
> I agree with this. It might be prudent to flesh this out
> into a category in order to keep it in play. If cell phones
> and pagers can be inccludeed, digital medical devices and
> point of ssale devices certainly can.
>
> On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:19 AM, Debbie Cook wrote:
>
> Digital medical products would probably be E&IT.
>
> And the cash register introduces an entirely different
> concept. Now, in addition to exempting the calculators et al,
> we're now talking about exempting big items. (Some per
> centage of the copiers etc.) So I'm wondering if it leaves a
> little band in the middle and where are the lines?
> I've been
> very in favor of legitimizing some of what goes on already in
> the name of defining and ultimately limiting it, but now
> we're working both ends.
> And
> this worries me a lot. Why then should all of anything be
> accessible? If we're only going to buy a couple of the
> accessible ones, who is going to make them? What will it be
> worth to them? If there's no mass production, the accessible
> ones will cost too much. And they won't be there when needed.
> I haven't been inclined to be an extremest, but I would move
> that way rather than to exempt everything except computer
> hardware and software.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to
> front. and
>
>
> Hmmmm
> Are these E&IT?
>
> The cash registers is a good one to discuss.
> But thermometers and glucometers and stethescopes?
>
> Are we talking about the cash register as an item for
> exemption category we have been discussing for personal calculators?
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
> > Golden
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:56 PM
> > To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> > Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use
> to front.
> > and
> >
> > I think we're a bit too stuck in the "office environment"
> > trying to identify the kinds of products that need the
> "narrow use -
> > readily substitutable"
> > exception. We have issues in state government with things
> like cash
> > registers, do we need to buy all of them with speech output
> options,
> > large visual display screens, etc.?
> > Same with small medical products like thermometers and
> glucometers (do
> > they all need to talk)? Do all stethescopes need to be amplified?
> > I'm sure there are many similar examples in other "non-office" type
> > environments that are part of government agencies.
> >
> > Diane Golden
> > NASCIO
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Debbie
> > Cook
> > Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:22 PM
> > To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
> > Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use
> to front.
> > and
> >
> >
> > Thismay come down to someting like electronic office supplies.
> > Calculators may abe about all that come into it frankly.
> Most agencies
> > have contracts for cell phones, even small printersetc. The
> key would
> > be user selectable if it exists. In my office we don't even get to
> > select the calculators except from a particular group.
> Common practice
> > is that employees routinely select these and in this case
> they would
> > not all have to be accessible or could have different
> accessibility.
> > But if procurement is tightly controlled, thn no prodeucts
> including
> > the calculator would fly on this. So maybe the key is not
> the type of
> > product as much as how procurement decisions are made.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> > < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> > Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 12:02 PM
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft
> > -(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and
> >
> >
> > A desk phone is not what I would think of as "Personal use
> item that
> > can be bought out of office funds". They are expensive and
> have to be
> > part of the overall system. Also, people use more that just the
> > phones on their own desks. The use them in common areas, meeting
> > rooms, and even other offices.
> >
> >
> >
> > I thought this was meant to apply to things like 'calculators' and
> > other small personal use items.
> >
> > Maybe we should first make a list of things that people
> think are and
> > are not in this new category that we are thinking of creating an
> > exception for.
> > Then figure out how to describe it. And whether it is a good
> > idea. I
> > think it is a good idea - if we can write it so that it can't be
> > misapplied easily.
> >
> > I would think of things in this category as including/excluding
> >
> >
> > THINGS THAT ARE IN THE EXCEPTION
> > - calculators
> > - personal printer (under $300) (if everyone has a different one on
> > their desk).
> > - cell phones if people are allowed to pick their own (but
> not if they
> > have to use one from a pool or all get the same one)
> > - PDA if people are allowed to pick their own (but not if
> they have to
> > use one from a pool or all get the same one)
> >
> > THINGS THAT ARE NOT
> > - personal workstations
> > - shared devices like
> > -- fax
> > -- copier
> > -- printers
> > -- Cell phones - if everyone has the same type
> >
> >
> > Huh, interesting exercise. I'm not coming up with too many
> > things for
> > examples for the exception and it seems to depend on whether it is
> > common practice for people to get their own type - or whether the
> > management and perhaps IT system and support requires /
> wants everyone
> > to use the same type.
> >
> >
> > Other people, take a crack. What would your lists of
> examples look
> > like.
> >
> >
> >
> > Gregg
> > -- ------------------------------
> > Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> >
> >

From: David Poehlman
Date: Thu, Mar 29 2007 7:55 AM
Subject: Re: SubpartA- Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and

Hi Greg, I think someone was objecting to "cash rregisters" whose
correct nomenclature today is point of sale devices. I agree with
you though, they are not in the personal category.

On Mar 29, 2007, at 10:23 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

I think "point of sale" (POS) devices would be E&IT. They are data
input
and processing devices.

But they shouldn't be in the category for this exception. They aren't
personal devices. We wouldn't suggest that people bring their own
or have
point of sale devices purchased for their personal use.



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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> David Poehlman
> Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2007 3:39 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use
> to front. and
>
> I agree with this. It might be prudent to flesh this out
> into a category in order to keep it in play. If cell phones
> and pagers can be inccludeed, digital medical devices and
> point of ssale devices certainly can.
>
> On Mar 22, 2007, at 2:19 AM, Debbie Cook wrote:
>
> Digital medical products would probably be E&IT.
>
> And the cash register introduces an entirely different
> concept. Now, in addition to exempting the calculators et al,
> we're now talking about exempting big items. (Some per
> centage of the copiers etc.) So I'm wondering if it leaves a
> little band in the middle and where are the lines?
> I've been
> very in favor of legitimizing some of what goes on already in
> the name of defining and ultimately limiting it, but now
> we're working both ends.
> And
> this worries me a lot. Why then should all of anything be
> accessible? If we're only going to buy a couple of the
> accessible ones, who is going to make them? What will it be
> worth to them? If there's no mass production, the accessible
> ones will cost too much. And they won't be there when needed.
> I haven't been inclined to be an extremest, but I would move
> that way rather than to exempt everything except computer
> hardware and software.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> To: < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >; "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 11:08 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] SubpartA-
> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to
> front. and
>
>
> Hmmmm
> Are these E&IT?
>
> The cash registers is a good one to discuss.
> But thermometers and glucometers and stethescopes?
>
> Are we talking about the cash register as an item for
> exemption category we have been discussing for personal calculators?
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane
>> Golden
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 21, 2007 3:56 PM
>> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
>> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use, Add Personal Use
> to front.
>> and
>>
>> I think we're a bit too stuck in the "office environment"
>> trying to identify the kinds of products that need the
> "narrow use -
>> readily substitutable"
>> exception. We have issues in state government with things
> like cash
>> registers, do we need to buy all of them with speech output
> options,
>> large visual display screens, etc.?
>> Same with small medical products like thermometers and
> glucometers (do
>> they all need to talk)? Do all stethescopes need to be amplified?
>> I'm sure there are many similar examples in other "non-office" type
>> environments that are part of government agencies.
>>
>> Diane Golden
>> NASCIO
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Debbie
>> Cook
>> Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 2:22 PM
>> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A-
>> Draft-(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use
> to front.
>> and
>>
>>
>> Thismay come down to someting like electronic office supplies.
>> Calculators may abe about all that come into it frankly.
> Most agencies
>> have contracts for cell phones, even small printersetc. The
> key would
>> be user selectable if it exists. In my office we don't even get to
>> select the calculators except from a particular group.
> Common practice
>> is that employees routinely select these and in this case
> they would
>> not all have to be accessible or could have different
> accessibility.
>> But if procurement is tightly controlled, thn no prodeucts
> including
>> the calculator would fly on this. So maybe the key is not
> the type of
>> product as much as how procurement decisions are made.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> To: "'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'"
>> < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>> Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2007 12:02 PM
>> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] Subpart A- Draft
>> -(g)Productswithnarrowdelineated use,Add Personal Use to front. and
>>
>>
>> A desk phone is not what I would think of as "Personal use
> item that
>> can be bought out of office funds". They are expensive and
> have to be
>> part of the overall system. Also, people use more that just the
>> phones on their own desks. The use them in common areas, meeting
>> rooms, and even other offices.
>>
>>
>>
>> I thought this was meant to apply to things like 'calculators' and
>> other small personal use items.
>>
>> Maybe we should first make a list of things that people
> think are and
>> are not in this new category that we are thinking of creating an
>> exception for.
>> Then figure out how to describe it. And whether it is a good
>> idea. I
>> think it is a good idea - if we can write it so that it can't be
>> misapplied easily.
>>
>> I would think of things in this category as including/excluding
>>
>>
>> THINGS THAT ARE IN THE EXCEPTION
>> - calculators
>> - personal printer (under $300) (if everyone has a different one on
>> their desk).
>> - cell phones if people are allowed to pick their own (but
> not if they
>> have to use one from a pool or all get the same one)
>> - PDA if people are allowed to pick their own (but not if
> they have to
>> use one from a pool or all get the same one)
>>
>> THINGS THAT ARE NOT
>> - personal workstations
>> - shared devices like
>> -- fax
>> -- copier
>> -- printers
>> -- Cell phones - if everyone has the same type
>>
>>
>> Huh, interesting exercise. I'm not coming up with too many
>> things for
>> examples for the exception and it seems to depend on whether it is
>> common practice for people to get their own type - or whether the
>> management and perhaps IT system and support requires /
> wants everyone
>> to use the same type.
>>
>>
>> Other people, take a crack. What would your lists of
> examples look
>> like.
>>
>>
>>
>> Gregg
>> -- ------------------------------
>> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>>
>>