Rich, I want to clear up a couple potential misconceptions from your last post on this thread.
1) Undue burden is, in fact, an accepted exception for not providing accessibility or accommodation. Fortunately, this is a very high bar, and it is not enough to claim undue burden, an agency must prove it. 2) There are regulations that require certain consumer-oriented telecommunication products, like telephones and televisions, to be accessible. These law require accessibility only when it is readily achievable, and not even all models in every circumstance. 3) There is no law that generally requires consumer electronics to be accessible. There are, of course, plenty of inaccessible MP3 players for example. Even computers are not regulated this way. 4) The Federal government, and many state governents, have formal policies of only purchasing accessible technology. They do not require that an OS be accessible in order to be sold to the public, but they do require that an OS be accessible for *them* to buy it. Did you read that story I cited early today? Here is the link again: http://blogs.sun.com/korn/date/20051113#Massachusetts_Accessibility_Background The Massachusetts state government didn't legally require Microsoft to make Windows 95 accessible. They said that they would not be buying it themselves, until and unless it was accessible. Completely different philosophies, and one that neither you nor Josh can really argue against. Classic power of the purse, from a large and civic-minded customer.
