W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2000

RE: TTY and the phone

From: Cynthia Waddell <cynthia.waddell@psinetcs.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2000 13:33:57 -0800
To: "David Poehlman" <david.h.poehlman@verizon.net>, "R. Neff" <rneff@bbnow.net>, "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NEBBLLCCGLJENHGOLLIECEMBCAAA.cynthia.waddell@psinetcs.com>
The US Access Board, in their guidance on compliance with the ADA, recommend
that the description "TTY" be utilized rather than TDD since it is more
inclusive of people with speech disabilities.  (TDD refers to "Telephone
Device for the Deaf"). As a result, the practice in California local govt is
to say, "For customer orders call 800-123-4567 (V/TTY)."  By using this
description "(V/TTY)" the deaf community in California would know that both
oral and deaf customers should call this number.

Best regards,
Cynthia Waddell
Formerly ADA compliance officer for City of San Jose

Cynthia D. Waddell
Sr. Consultant/Subject Matter Expert
PSINet Consulting Solutions
Accessibility Center of Excellence

Raleigh, NC: 1-800-547-5602 ext. 136
Sacramento, CA: 1-800-408-3567

San Jose Office:
PO BOX 5456
San Jose, California  95150-5456

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-ig-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of David Poehlman
Sent: Saturday, November 11, 2000 8:55 AM
To: R. Neff; Al Gilman
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: TTY and the phone

and than there is something like:
call this number for all orders in all modes.
this is not a finished thought but I think in the electronic age, we
need to begin to think more universally.  even if we have to explain
it at the outset, it will be worth it in the final annalysis.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
To: "R. Neff" <rneff@bbnow.net>
Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>(
Sent: November 11, 2000 10:48 AM
Subject: Re: TTY and the phone

At 09:41 PM 2000-11-10 -0600, R. Neff wrote:
>On the web there is a phone number to place orders but no TTY
capability is
>not listed. However, if a person using a TTY device calls, they are
>automatically forwarded to an operator that will take the order. this
>operator is not part of the call center but a service offered by the
>telecommunication carrier.
>what is the proper way to describe a process without offending
>for example, would you say. For customer orders call 800-123-4567
>in the future we will have TTY capability from the call center.
>thanks, rob neff

I would give you your choice of how to say it.  Actually, you should
straight to SHHH and/or other consumer-advocacy groups for advice on
this as
well, and not stop with WAI.

This is a rule that applies to print advertising of the TTY-enabled
number as well as to advertising this capability on the Web.  And the
issue is
what will the TTY-user community recognize, not anything

The range of options that make logical sense include:

[Separate entries, because that is what the text telephone (TTY/TDD)


For orders call 800-xxx-yyyy

Text telephone (TTY/TDD) users, call this number as well.

[end example]

[Integrated listing. -- three examples]

For orders call 800-xxx-yyyy.  Note: this number will get you to text
service (TTY/TDD) as well.

For orders call 800-xxx-yyyy (text telephone (TTY/TDD) users, call

For orders call 800-xxx-yyyy (TTY OK).

-- end of examples.

I lifted the language

Text telephone (TTY/TDD) users

out of the telephone book.  This is verbose but probably the phone
company as
the omnibus monopoly utility has been under the closest scrutiny and
to say it clearly.  So how they say it is probably a good way to say

The word 'enabled' is too geeky.  'TTY-capable is better plain
English, but
still on the pointy-headed side of popular argot.  I would like to see
something very brief like "TTY OK" emerge as the code word for this
because during the transition, it is going to have to go on _lots_ of
numbers in print and other text-bearing media.  But that should be
OK'd by
consumer representatives adn/or representative consumers before it's

Received on Tuesday, 14 November 2000 16:32:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:10 UTC