Microsoft office standard 2010 detected changes to the hardware on your computer free

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

На полке с компьютерными деталями, спрятанными за накопителем носителей информации, лежала кружка выпускника Стэнфордского университета и тестер. Не коснувшись краев, он вытащил из нее ключ Медеко. – Поразительно, – пробурчал он, – что сотрудникам лаборатории систем безопасности ничего об этом не известно. ГЛАВА 47 – Шифр ценой в миллиард долларов? – усмехнулась Мидж, столкнувшись с Бринкерхоффом в коридоре.

 
 

Microsoft office standard 2010 detected changes to the hardware on your computer free

 

PC World. Retrieved December 4, Pervasive Computing. S2CID Archived from the original on July 30, November 10, November 11, Retrieved November 15, January 16, Retrieved February 23, Ars Technica. November 20, Retrieved November 29, Retrieved December 11, Business Wire. January 3, Retrieved January 3, Archived from the original on February 27, Retrieved February 26, Fast Company.

October 31, Venture Beat. Retrieved November 16, Retrieved October 7, Computer Vision and Image Understanding. Bibcode : arXivS. Archived from the original on January 11, Retrieved February 24, Archived from the original on June 20, Retrieved March 31, Archived from the original on March 6, Retrieved March 16, November 17, Archived from the original on March 17, Kotaku , Gawker Media.

Retrieved November 25, Archived from the original on January 21, Retrieved June 2, Retrieved June 5, Retrieved July 2, This information is based on specifications supplied by manufacturers and should be used for guidance only. June 19, Retrieved March 21, Microsoft Store. Archived from the original on June 18, Retrieved July 7, In The Wild”. Retrieved May 27, Retrieved June 14, Retrieved October 19, March 8, March 26, Retrieved May 22, Channel 9.

Retrieved November 13, Retrieved May 9, Supersite for Windows. Retrieved July 1, April 5, Retrieved April 5, Retrieved January 2, Retrieved December 16, July 15, Retrieved May 8, April 2, May 7, Archived from the original on September 12, Retrieved September 18, January 5, Archived from the original on July 9, Retrieved December 9, Electronic Theatre.

February 20, June 6, Archived from the original on December 2, The New York Times. Retrieved December 6, San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved December 26, December 2, Retrieved December 8, Retrieved March 4, Journal of Biomechanical Engineering. March 15, QuickJump Gaming Network.

December 27, March 22, Retrieved March 19, Computer and Video Games. Archived from the original on November 6, Game Informer. November 4, Retrieved November 8, The Washington Post. Retrieved November 10, February 4, February 5, Retrieved November 3, The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on November 14, Retrieved February 15, Retrieved March 10, Archived from the original on March 11, Archived from the original on January 16, Retrieved January 14, Archived from the original on March 14, Retrieved 29 March Archived from the original on 29 March Archived from the original on 4 January Retrieved 4 January Only Released Gigabytes So Far”.

Business Insider. Archived from the original on 17 December Retrieved 18 December Lee 18 January Archived from the original on 17 March Archived PDF from the original on 9 November Retrieved 4 November Archived from the original on 20 January Retrieved 22 January The Guardian.

Archived from the original on 16 March Archived PDF from the original on 21 February Archived from the original on 19 January The Independent. Archived from the original on 2 February The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 14 February Archived PDF from the original on 21 January The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2 June BBC News. Archived from the original on 6 September Retrieved 25 September Archived from the original on 7 March Retrieved 30 January Archived from the original on 5 June Retrieved 5 June Archived from the original on 6 June Archived from the original on 24 June Education Week.

Archived from the original on 10 June Archived from the original on 26 June Retrieved 26 June Archived from the original on 27 June Harvard Business Review.

River Publishers. Archived PDF from the original on 12 October Archived from the original on 14 May Dark Reading. Archived from the original on 29 May The Daily Beast.

Archived from the original on 29 December Retrieved 29 December Wirtschafts Woche. NBC News. The Register. Archived from the original on 16 November The Indian Express. CBS Boston. Archived from the original on 29 September Healthcare IT News. The Verge. Food and Drug Administration. Archived PDF from the original on 29 December Daily Energy Insider. The Economic Impact of Cyber-Attacks. What Motivates Cyber-Attackers? Technology Innovation Management Review.

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice. Security engineering : a guide to building dependable distributed systems Third ed. Indianapolis, IN. OCLC Archived PDF from the original on 20 November Janalta Interactive Inc.

Archived from the original on 3 October Retrieved 9 October Archived from the original on 20 August Retrieved 13 July Archived from the original on 25 September F5 Labs. Retrieved 25 February Cisco Press. IEEE Press. Archived from the original PDF on 21 May Retrieved 19 May Cyber Security Inoculation. Scientific American. Bibcode : SciAm. PMID Archived from the original on 20 March Retrieved 20 March Intel Corporation.

Archived PDF from the original on 11 June Archived from the original on 21 June National Institute of Standards and Technology. Gaithersburg, MD. Fox Business Network. Archived from the original on 3 December Retrieved 1 December Archived from the original on 2 May Retrieved 9 March October August IEEE Computer.

CiteSeerX A multi-domain role activation model PDF. Loomis March Research Triangle Institute. CSO Online. IBM Security Intelligence. NZ Bankers Association. Retrieved 7 September Retrieved 27 September Retrieved 28 September Vinton G. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Retrieved 13 March Archived from the original on 27 September Retrieved 12 December MyFox Twin Cities, 29 March Archived from the original on 9 May Cyber-Attack on Iran Nukes?

CBS News. Archived from the original on 16 October Retrieved 18 February Stars and Stripes. Retrieved 30 October IO Journal. Archived from the original PDF on 19 December Archived from the original on 16 August Retrieved 16 August La Foundation Courage.

Archived from the original on 14 July Retrieved 11 June IEEE Spectrum. Archived from the original on 1 February Archived from the original on 27 January CBS Interactive. Archived from the original on 9 December Archived from the original on 28 February The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 10 July Network Security.

Archived from the original on 16 January Hack in the Box Security Conference. Archived from the original on 25 November Government Accountability Office. Archived from the original on 19 November Retrieved 3 November The San Francisco Chronicle. Human Rights Watch. Retrieved 26 May Retrieved 6 July Archived from the original on 23 September Archived from the original on 17 October Market Wired.

Archived from the original on 2 November Retrieved 1 November Public Safety Canada. Government of Canada.

In addition, the revised requirements include functional performance criteria, which are outcome-based provisions that apply in two limited instances: when the technical requirements do not address one or more features of ICT or when evaluation of an alternative design or technology is needed under equivalent facilitation. Some of the key provisions and updates reflected in the Revised Standards and Guidelines relative to the existing standards and guidelines include:.

Technological advances over the past two decades have resulted in the widespread use of multifunction devices that called into question the ongoing utility of the product-by-product approach used in the Board’s existing Standards and Guidelines. Consequently, one of the primary purposes of the final rule is to replace the current product-based approach with requirements based on functionality, and, thereby, ensure that accessibility for people with disabilities keeps pace with advances in ICT.

To ensure that compliance under both laws, to the maximum extent possible, can be measured against a common set of technical requirements, the implementing regulations have been consolidated into a single part: 36 CFR part As discussed below, this is a new organizational format for the Standards and Guidelines that mirrors the formatting of other standards and guidelines issued by the Access Board over the past decade.

Appendix A applies only to Section covered ICT and consists of Chapter 1, which sets forth general application and administration provisions, while Chapter 2 contains scoping requirements which, in turn, prescribe which ICT — and, in some cases, how many — must comply with the technical specifications.

Appendix B, which applies to covered ICT only, is organized similarly with Chapter 1 setting forth general application and administration provisions and Chapter 2 containing scoping requirements.

Appendix C sets forth technical specifications that apply equally to ICT covered under Sections or Appendix C includes five chapters, each of which with the exception of the final chapter address a separate ICT functional area.

Lastly, in Appendix D, the existing Standards are republished in full albeit with a revised section numbering system for reference when evaluating Section covered existing legacy ICT under the “safe harbor” provision. See discussion infra Section IV.

For Section covered ICT, all covered Web and non-Web content and software — including, for example, Web sites, intranets, word processing documents, portable document format documents, and project management software — is required, with a few specific exceptions, to conform to WCAG 2.

By applying a single set of requirements to Web sites, electronic documents, and software, the revised requirements adapt the existing Standards to reflect the newer multifunction technologies e. For Section covered ICT, electronic content and software that is integral to the use of telecommunications and customer premise equipment is required to conform to WCAG 2. There are several exceptions related to non-Web documents and software.

From the outset, one of the Access Board’s primary goals in this rulemaking has been to increase harmonization with international standards relating to ICT accessibility that have been developed worldwide over the past decade.

Some of these standards such as WCAG 2. For other standards such as EN , which is the European accessibility standard for public ICT procurement , harmonization comes in the form of ensuring that the relevant accessibility specifications in such standard and the final rule can both be met simultaneously without conflict. Harmonization with international standards and guidelines creates a larger marketplace for accessibility solutions, thereby attracting more offerings and increasing the likelihood of commercial availability of accessible ICT options.

The Revised Standards specify that all types of public-facing content, as well as nine categories of non-public-facing content that communicate agency official business, have to be accessible, with “content” encompassing all forms of electronic information and data. The existing standards require Federal agencies to make electronic information and data accessible, but do not delineate clearly the scope of covered information and data. As a result, document accessibility has been inconsistent across Federal agencies.

By focusing on public-facing content and certain types of agency official communications that are not public facing, the revised requirements bring needed clarity to the scope of electronic content covered by the Standards and, thereby, help Federal agencies make electronic content accessible more consistently.

The existing standards require ICT to be compatible with assistive technology — that is, hardware or software that increases or maintains functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities e. However, in the past the existing requirement resulted in ambiguity of application. The ensuing confusion led, in some cases, to unnecessary delay in procurements intended to provide reasonable accommodations to employees under Section , creating a hardship for both agencies and their employees with disabilities.

The final rule provides more specificity about how operating systems, software development toolkits, and software applications should interact with assistive technology. The final rule also specifically exempts assistive technology from the interoperability provisions. The Board expects the final rule to improve software interoperability with assistive technology, allowing users better access to the functionalities that ICT products provide.

Federal agencies will have one year from publication of this final rule to comply with the Revised Standards. This extended period for compliance is responsive to some agencies’ concerns about the time it will take them to make ICT compliant with the Revised Standards. In addition, the Revised Standards include a “safe harbor” provision for existing i.

Under this safe harbor, unaltered, existing ICT including content that complies with the existing Standards need not be modified or upgraded to conform to the Revised Standards. This safe harbor applies on an element-by-element basis in that each component or portion of existing ICT is assessed separately. Corresponding definitions have also been added for “existing ICT” and “alteration. Notably, the extended compliance date and safe harbor provision apply only to Section covered ICT; these provisions do not apply to telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment covered by Section Since compliance with the Revised Guidelines is not required unless and until they are adopted by the FCC, matters addressed in these two provisions fall within the commission’s province.

Consistent with the obligation under Executive Orders and that Federal agencies promulgate regulations only upon a reasoned determination that benefits justify costs, the final rule has been evaluated from a benefit-cost perspective in a final regulatory impact analysis Final RIA prepared by the Board’s consulting economic firm.

The focus of the Final RIA is to define and, where possible, quantify and monetize the potential incremental benefits and costs of the Revised Standards and Guidelines. We summarize its methodology and results below. To estimate likely incremental compliance costs attributable to the final rule, the Final RIA estimates, quantifies, and monetizes costs in the following broad areas: 1 costs to Federal agencies and contractors related to policy development, employee training, development of accessible ICT, evaluation of ICT, and creation of accessible electronic documents; 2 costs to Federal agencies of ensuring that speech-output enabled hardware with closed functionality has braille instructions e.

On the benefits side, the Final RIA estimates likely incremental benefits by monetizing the value of three categories of benefits expected to accrue from the Revised Standards: a increased productivity of Federal employees with certain disabilities who are expected to benefit from improved ICT accessibility; b time saved by members of the public with certain disabilities when using more accessible Federal Web sites; and c reduced phone calls to Federal agencies as members of the public with certain disabilities shift their inquiries and transactions online due to improved accessibility of Federal Web sites.

The Final RIA, for analytical purposes, defines the beneficiary population as persons with vision, hearing, speech, learning, and intellectual disabilities, as well as those with manipulation, reach, or strength limitations.

The Final RIA does not formally quantify or monetize benefits accruing from the Revised Guidelines due to insufficient data and methodological constraints. Table 1 below summarizes the results from the Final RIA with respect to the likely monetized benefits and costs, on an annualized basis, from the Revised Standards and Guidelines. All monetized benefits and costs are incremental to the applicable baseline, and were estimated for a year time horizon starting in since the final rule requires Federal agencies to comply one year after its publication and converted to annualized values using discount rates of 7 and 3 percent.

Three scenarios of incremental benefits and costs are presented using alternative parameters that are assumptions-based. These scenarios include: a low net benefit scenario using parameters which results in lower benefits and higher costs , an expected scenario consisting of expected values for assumed parameters , and a high net benefit scenario using parameters which results in higher benefits and lower costs.

While the Final RIA monetizes likely incremental benefits and costs attributable to the final rule, this represents only part of the regulatory picture. Today, though ICT is now woven into the very fabric of everyday life, millions of Americans with disabilities often find themselves unable to use — or use effectively — computers, mobile devices, Federal agency Web sites, or electronic content.

The Board’s existing standards and guidelines are greatly in need of a “refresh” to keep up with technological changes over the past fifteen years. The Board expects this final rule to be a major step toward ensuring that ICT is more accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities — both in the Federal workplace and society generally.

Indeed, much — if not most — of the significant benefits expected to accrue from the final rule are difficult, if not impossible, to quantify, including: greater social equality, human dignity, and fairness.

Each of these values is explicitly recognized by Executive Order as important qualitative considerations in regulatory analyses. Moreover, American companies that manufacture telecommunications equipment and ICT-related products will likely derive significant benefits from the Access Board’s concerted efforts to harmonize the accessibility requirements in the Revised Standards and Guidelines with voluntary consensus standards.

Given the relative lack of existing national and globally-recognized standards for accessibility of mobile technologies, telecommunications equipment manufacturers will, we believe, greatly benefit from harmonization of the Revised Guidelines with consensus standards.

Similar benefits will likely accrue more generally to manufacturers of all ICT-related products as a result of harmonization. It is also equally important to note that some potentially substantial incremental costs arising from the final rule are not evaluated in the Final RIA, either because such costs could not be quantified or monetized due to lack of data or for other methodological reasons or are inherently qualitative.

For example, due to lack of information, the Final RIA does not assess the cost impact of new or revised requirements in the Revised Guidelines on computer and telecommunications equipment manufacturers.

The Access Board issued the existing Guidelines for telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment in Two years later, in , the Board published the existing Standards. In this preamble, all citations to 36 CFR part refer to the existing Guidelines in force since , while all citations to 36 CFR Part refer to the existing Standards in force since The existing Standards require Federal agencies to ensure that persons with disabilities — namely, Federal employees with disabilities and members of the public with disabilities — have comparable access to, and use of, electronic and information technology regardless of the type of medium absent a showing of undue burden.

Among other things, these standards: define key terms such as “electronic and information technology” and “undue burden” ; establish technical requirements and functional performance criteria for covered electronic and information technologies; require agencies to document undue burden determinations when procuring covered products; and mandate accessibility of support documentation and services.

Generally speaking, the existing Standards take a product-based regulatory approach in that technical requirements for electronic and information technology are grouped by product type: software applications and operating systems; Web-based intranet and Internet information and applications; telecommunications products; self-contained, closed products; and desktop and portable computers.

The existing Guidelines require manufacturers of telecommunications equipment and customer premises equipment to ensure that new and substantially upgraded existing equipment is accessible to, and usable by, individuals with disabilities when readily achievable. The existing guidelines, as with the Standards, define key terms such as “telecommunications equipment” and “readily achievable” and establish technical requirements for covered equipment, software, and support documentation.

These guidelines also require manufacturers of covered equipment to consider inclusion of individuals with disabilities in their respective processes for product design, testing, trials, or market research. In the years following our initial promulgation of the existing Standards and Guidelines, technology has continued to evolve at a rapid pace.

Pursuant to our statutory mandate, the Access Board deemed it necessary and appropriate to review and update the existing Standards and Guidelines in order to make them consistent with one another and reflective of technological changes. See Advisory Committee Report, U. Access Board Apr. This TEITAC Report provided a set of recommended updates to the existing Standards and Guidelines, which, the committee noted, were intended to balance two competing considerations: the need for clear and specific standards that facilitate compliance, and the recognition that static standards “consisting of design specification[s] and fixed checklists” would tend to “stifle innovation” and “delay the availability of technology advancements to people with disabilities.

To address these considerations, the TEITAC Advisory Committee recommended that the Access Board jettison its existing product-based regulatory approach in favor of technical requirements to achieve accessibility based on ICT functions or features. The Committee also noted the importance of harmonizing with international standards to both spur development of accessible ICT products and reduce manufacturers’ costs in the global market. All told, the TEITAC Report provided a comprehensive recommended set of technical requirements applicable to a broad range of ICT functions and features, including: closed functionality; hardware with and without speech output; user interfaces; electronic content; processing and display of captions and audio description; RTT; authoring tools; and, product support documentation and services.

While the majority of the proposed requirements in the draft rule were not substantively changed from the existing Standards and Guidelines, there were some notable proposed substantive revisions.

Two of the most significant were the proposals to require that Federal agencies make electronic content of specified official communications accessible, and to harmonize with WCAG 2. In the draft rule, the proposed standards and guidelines shared a common set of functional performance criteria Chapter 2 and technical design criteria Chapters , but had separate introductory chapters Chapters 1 and 2 , which outlined the respective scoping, application, and definitions for the revised Standards and Guidelines.

We also received written comments during the comment period. Comments came from industry, Federal and state governments, foreign and domestic companies specializing in information technology, disability advocacy groups, manufacturers of hardware and software, trade associations, institutions of higher education, research and trade organizations, accessibility consultants, assistive technology industry and related organizations, and individuals. In general, commenters agreed with our approach to addressing the accessibility of ICT through functionality rather than discrete product types.

For example, commenters noted confusion by virtue of the fact that some chapters focused on functional features of accessibility while others addressed specific types of technology, or that the meaning of “ICT” seemed to vary depending on the context of the specific chapter.

Other commenters opined that deviations from WCAG 2. By the following year, in , the Access Board was poised to invite public comment on a revised version of the draft rule. The Board acknowledged that, based on comments to the ANPRM, the draft rule needed to be reorganized and made more concise.

More importantly, we needed to obtain further comment on major issues and harmonize with the European Commission’s ICT standardization efforts that were already underway at that time. To address comments criticizing the length and organization of the ANPRM as unwieldy, the revised draft rule consolidated and streamlined provisions into six chapters from ten , consolidated advisories, and reduced the page count from close to to less than We also made revisions to improve the clarity of various proposed provisions and ensure a consistent organizational structure throughout this draft rule.

See, e. Additionally, to address commenters’ collective concern that rephrasing of WCAG 2. In issuing the ANPRM, the Access Board also took notice of the standardization work going on in Europe at the time, stating: [T]he Board is interested in harmonizing with standards efforts around the world in a timely way. Accordingly, the Board is now releasing this second Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking ANPRM to seek further comment on specific questions and to harmonize with contemporaneous standardization efforts underway by the European Commission.

Comments came from industry, Federal and state governments, foreign and domestic companies specializing in information technology, disability advocacy groups, manufacturers of hardware and software, trade associations and trade organizations, institutions of higher education and research, accessibility consultants, assistive technology industry and related organizations, and individual stakeholders who did not identify with any of these groups.

In general, commenters continued to agree with our approach to address ICT accessibility by focusing on features, rather than discrete product types. Commenters supported the conciseness of the proposed provisions in the ANPRM, and asked for further streamlining where possible.

Commenters also generally voiced strong support for the Board’s decision to incorporate by reference WCAG 2. In , the Access Board formally commenced the rulemaking process by issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking to update the existing Standards and Guidelines. This proposed rule—while making editorial changes and other updates in response to comments on the ANPRM— retained the same overall structure and approach to referencing WCAG 2. Additionally, written comments were received in response to the NPRM.

Comments came from industry, Federal and state governments, disability advocacy groups, manufacturers of hardware and software, trade associations and trade organizations, institutions of higher education and research, and individuals who did not identify with any of these groups. Overall, we received about comments in response to the NPRM, including written comments and oral testimony from witnesses at the three public hearings.

These commenters represented, when excluding multiple submissions, about different entities or individuals. By general category, these NPRM commenters can be broken down as follows: individuals 59 ; disability advocacy organizations 59 ; ICT companies 10 ; accessible ICT services providers 11 ; trade associations representing ITC and telecommunications companies 11 ; individuals or groups identifying themselves as ICT subject matter experts 13 ; academicians 6 ; state or local governmental agencies 7 ; standards development organizations 3 ; international disability advocacy organizations 9 ; and, anonymous 4.

In general, commenters spoke positively about the proposed rule, and noted that it was much improved from earlier iterations in the and ANPRMs. By a wide margin, the single most commented-upon aspect of the proposed rule and the issue on which commenters expressed the greatest unanimity was timing. Characterizing refresh of the Standards and Guidelines as “long overdue,” these commenters urged the Access Board to issue its final rule as expeditiously as possible. On substantive matters, a large number of commenters addressed some aspect of the requirements for electronic content, with the bulk of these comments relating to Section covered content.

Another technical area receiving sizeable comment was our proposal that, under both Sections and , WCAG 2. Additionally, real-time text RTT was a subject of great interest to NPRM commenters, with most commenters representing disability advocacy organizations and academicians supporting the Board’s RTT proposal, while ITC manufacturers and trade groups expressed opposition.

Further, the issue of harmonization with EN received considerable comment. In general, ITC industry-related commenters urged the Board to harmonize more closely with this European specification.

Disability advocacy organizations and consumer-related commenters, on the other hand, viewed the proposed rule and EN as well harmonized already and expressed concern that further harmonization would be improvident because, in their view, EN set forth weaker accessibility requirements in some areas. Lastly, the Board received multiple comments from individuals or entities addressing various types of electromagnetic sensitivities.

These commenters requested that the final rule require accommodations for people with electromagnetic intolerances, so that they might use Federal buildings and Federally-funded facilities. The Board acknowledges the challenges faced by individuals with electromagnetic sensitivities, and notes that electromagnetic sensitivities may be considered a disability under the ADA if the sensitivity so severely impairs the neurological, respiratory, or other functions of an individual that it substantially limits one or more of the individual’s major life activities.

However, most of the accommodations suggested by these commenters are beyond the scope of this rulemaking or our statutory jurisdiction. Moreover, none of our prior rulemaking notices i. Thus, were the Board to address electromagnetic sensitivity issues posed by ITC, this complex area would require thorough research and notice-and-comment rulemaking before being addressed through rulemaking. While the Access Board was in the process of updating its existing Standards and Guidelines, a similar process began in Europe to create the first European set of ICT accessibility standards.

In , the European Commission issued Mandate , which sought the assistance of several private European standards organizations in the development of European accessibility guidelines for public ICT procurements. See European Comm. In early , the three European standardization organizations completed their development process by formally adopting and publishing the first European set of specifications on e-accessibility for public ICT procurements, EN Unlike the Standards, however, EN —by its own terms— establishes only non-binding, voluntary accessibility requirements for public ICT procurements.

EN is thus now available to government officials in EU member states who may use it as technical specifications or award criteria in public procurements of ICT products and services. In the final rule, the Board has made multiple changes that are similar to EN Both the final rule and EN address the functions of technology, rather than categories of technologies. Similarly, both offer technical requirements and functional performance criteria for accessible ICT.

For example, our use of the phrase “information and communication technology” ICT in the final rule, as a replacement of the existing term “electronic and information technology,” originates in the common usage of ICT throughout Europe and the rest of the world.

Moreover, both documents are organized in similar ways, in that they both have initial scoping and definitions chapters, followed by separate chapters containing technical requirements and functional performance criteria. Organizationally, the documents differ in several respects. These general differences are outlined in Table 2 below:. For non-Web documents, we are explicit with the word substitution necessary, and provide an exception for the four problematic success criteria.

The NPRM delineated specific types of electronic content that Federal agencies would need to make accessible consistent with the technical requirements of the proposed rule. As explained in the NPRM, the Board proposed these provisions to further clarify the requirement in the existing Standards that Federal agencies make electronic information and data accessible to employees and members of the public. The Board noted confusion over what type of content was covered under the broad language of the existing Standards, and the difficulty that Federal agencies displayed in effectively meeting their obligations to provide accessible electronic content.

The NPRM specifically proposed that two discrete groups of content be covered by the refresh of the Standards. First, in proposed E Public-facing content refers to electronic information and data that a Federal agency makes available directly to the general public. The requirement to make accessible public-facing content is discussed below in Section IV.

Second, in proposed E We sought comment in the NPRM on whether the proposed eight categories of non-public-facing content were sufficiently clear, and whether they provided sufficient accessibility without unnecessarily burdening agencies.

The Board further requested comment on whether a ninth category for “widely disseminated” electronic content should be included in the final rule. Nine commenters responded to the proposed provision regarding non-public-facing electronic content proposed E In general, commenters agreed with the proposed approach requiring that only certain categories of non-public-facing content be made accessible, and most commenters found the categories to be sufficiently clear.

Another commenter, an ICT subject matter expert, requested clarification of the internal and external program and policy announcements category and suggested including an additional category for announcements sent to all employees. An accessible ICT services provider was the only commenter to object to the eight categories, finding them too confusing and too difficult to implement.

That commenter preferred that the requirement for accessibility of non-public-facing content be tied to the extent of the content’s distribution, and suggested that any document distributed to 50 or more individuals be made accessible. Three other commenters responded to the NPRM’s question five as to whether a “widely disseminated” category should be added.

One Federal agency opposed inclusion of this category, asserting that it would cause confusion. One ICT subject matter expert and one Federal agency generally liked the idea of such a category, but acknowledged that definitional challenges would make it difficult to implement. The Federal agency supporting inclusion of the “widely disseminated” category indicated that the eight proposed categories would not sufficiently encompass the internal Web pages available to employees, and suggested that the problem could be solved with the addition of a ninth category for internal Web pages.

This commenter asserted that without such a category for internal Web pages, agencies would need to develop systems to categorize internal Web page content, ensure that employees with disabilities could navigate to the covered content, and find a way to create an integrated accessible experience across internal Web sites where some content is accessible and some is not. Upon careful consideration of the comments, we have decided to retain the proposed eight categories in the final rule and have added a ninth category for intranet content, as described below.

Most commenters concurred with the proposed approach providing categories for non-public-facing content, and indicated that the categories were clearly described. The Board, therefore, finds no reason to alter the eight proposed categories, and has retained them, as proposed, in the final rule. However, the Board did not intend for the use of these categories to exclude some intranet content; all intranet content is currently covered under the existing Standards.

Therefore, in the final rule, the Board has added a ninth category to final E With these releases there major changes to the release model of future CUs.

Hybrid Experience Updates Licensing has been updated to add a product key for Exchange hybrid servers at no additional charge. For more information see the Exchange Server supportability matrix. Or what about names? Katerina or Caterina? Kristian or Christian? With an Advanced Find macro we can make these type of searches quick and easy again. There are a couple of things to be aware of when you heavily rely on Outlook. This vulnerability is currently not publicly disclosed nor exploited.

What should you be aware of when you heavily rely on Outlook? Version and We fixed an issue where users were not able to add room mailboxes to the calendar. We fixed an issue that caused users to see multiple copies of a shared calendar rendered in certain circumstances. Expanded GAL people suggestions for mail and calendar compose Outlook will now return results from the complete GAL when suggesting people for email and calendar compose.

Turn on the preview for faster and more reliable updates to shared calendars. Most notable fixes are; We fixed an issue that caused users to experience a close unexpectedly when opening an Online Archive or Shared Mailbox. We fixed an issue that caused EU users to see information missing from person cards. It comes with 1 new feature for Outlook and 5 highlighted fixes. We fixed an issue that caused delegates to be unable to open a shared contacts folder despite having the correct permissions.

Version We fixed an issue that caused users to see only a subset of the messages to get moved when moving multiple mail items from Focused to Other or Other to Focused. We fixed an issue that caused shared calendars to be in an unselected state after adding them. Access Version and We fixed an issue that caused EU users to see information missing from person cards.

Version We fixed a scrolling performance issue with documents with a large number of merge fields. Word We fixed an issue where Outlook may stop responding scrolling through an email message. Office The new features in Monthly Enterprise Version is; Save time while composing messages Outlook shows you writing suggestions that help you compose messages quickly. To accept the suggestion, just use the Tab key. What do the Outlook Icons Mean? Related Ads. Copyright HowTo-Outlook All rights reserved.

Microsoft and Microsoft logo’s are trademarks of Microsoft Corporation. This website uses cookies to improve your experience.

 

[Microsoft office standard 2010 detected changes to the hardware on your computer free

 
Try Microsoft for free. Download Microsoft Edge More info. In the 1st post I described waiting for an agent and successfully activating. Too technical. Not enough information. Now I get “Windows reported that the hardware of your device has changed. Make sure any 3rd-party Office add-ins that you rely on are stated as being Office and bit compatible.

 
 

Microsoft office standard 2010 detected changes to the hardware on your computer free

 
 

Welcome to Microsoft Community and thank you for posting your query. Вот ссылка found, you may uninstall the same apart microdoft the one which you have purchased and then microsof Office and verify the status. If you do not find multiple version of office installed on the computer, you may browse to the location below and start the Office application in administrator mode and verify the status. If the above steps fail, you may contact activation team over the phone Tucson activation team by following the steps mentioned in the link below who would be able to help you activating Office Нажмите чтобы прочитать больше hope the above information helps.

Let us know if you need further assistance. Microsoft office standard 2010 detected changes to the hardware on your computer free this reply helpful? Yes No. Sorry this didn’t help. Thanks for your feedback. Choose where you want to microsoft office standard 2010 detected changes to the hardware on your computer free below Search Search the Community.

Search the community and support articles Install, redeem, activate Microsoft and Office Search Community member. I have been using the same software on the same notebook computer for two years. There have been no harcware changes. My activation key is in Atlanta and I am in Tucson, so activating again is not really an option.

And this just started this afternoon. It worked fine in the morning. Any suggestions? This thread is locked. You can follow changess question or vote as helpful, but you cannot reply to this thread. I have the same question 0. Report abuse. Details required :. Cancel Submit. Raju S Das. Hello, Welcome to Microsoft Community xomputer thank you for posting your вот ссылка. Let me assist you with office issue. Thank you. How satisfied are you with this reply?

Thanks for your feedback, it helps us improve ofrice site. This site in other languages x.