Thread Subject: Re: fundamental alteration

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Jan 12 2007 4:10 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: fundamental alteration"
• Previous message in thread: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC: "Re: fundamental alteration"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Thanks Norman,

I would think that we should keep fundamental alteration focused on products
as defined. I don't see a basis for altering its definition - and I see
lots of problems.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC
> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2007 12:49 PM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] fundamental alteration
>
> "My question to the TEITAC is whether you are comfortable
> with fundamental alteration of a product being stretched to
> mean fundamental alteration of a procurement? In other words
> do you understand the parameters of fundamental alteration
> and do you want to change them? Do you want to recommend
> some advisory notes that provide clarification?"
>
> David,
>
> 1. I would not like to see fundamental alteration apply to
> the procurement process. I believe the current definition
> speaks to "product or it's components" thus tangible goods,
> not a project manager's life-cycle thus I wouldn't even
> entertain the idea.
>
> 2. The problem with fundamental alteration as a general
> exception is proof. No where in Section 508 does it require I
> document the business _requirements_. We know this is best
> practice, practical, and common sense. It doesn't mean we are
> required to document with the zeal applied to undue burden.
>
> I would recommend standard contracting language and that a
> simple requirement is that requirements should be documented.
> That needs elaboration but that is the basic idea.
>
> Regards,
>
>
> Norman B. Robinson
> Section 508 Coordinator
> IT Governance, US Postal Service
> phone: 202.268.8246
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Baquis David
> Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 10:39 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Subject: [teitac-subparta] fundamental alteration
>
>
> Within the recent discussion about exceptions, the issue of
> fundamental
> alteration was raised. I did not see any objection to the
> way that the
> fundamental alteration concept had been applied in this context:
>
> "The purpose of the purchase is to determine accessibility,
> so requiring
> it be determined ahead of the purchase would be fundamentally
> something
> other than the purchase intended."
>
> The origin of fundamental alteration is in the 508 NPRM. See:
> http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/nprm.htm. Here is what we said and
> note that a key word is "product":
>
> "Paragraph (e) states that compliance with this part does not
> require a
> fundamental alteration in the nature of a product or its components.
> Fundamental alteration means a change in the fundamental
> characteristic
> of the product, not merely a cosmetic or aesthetic change.
> For example,
> an agency intends to procure pocket-sized pagers for their
> field agents.
> Adding a large display to a small pager may fundamentally alter the
> device by significantly changing its size to such an extent that it no
> longer meets the purpose for which it was intended, that is
> to fit in a
> shirt or jacket pocket."
>
> This conversation reminds me of an issue that came up years ago when
> someone said to me that he thought that 508 was causing a fundamental
> alteration of his timeline to procure an item quickly and on
> that basis
> he wanted to claim fundamental alteration as a basis for procuring a
> product that may or may not be accessible. In other words, he
> wanted to
> skip over 508 because it was slowing him down.
>
> My question to the TEITAC is whether you are comfortable with
> fundamental alteration of a product being stretched to mean
> fundamental
> alteration of a procurement? In other words do you understand the
> parameters of fundamental alteration and do you want to
> change them? Do
> you want to recommend some advisory notes that provide clarification?
>
> Remember that you can recommend lots of advisory notes throughout the
> Standards/Guidelines, even without recommending changes in the
> requirements.
>
> David Baquis
> Accessibility Specialist
> U.S. Access Board
> 1331 F Street, NW, #1000
> Washington, DC 20004
> 800-USA-ABLE; (202) 272-0013 (voice)
> www.access-board.gov; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
>

• Next message in Thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: fundamental alteration"
• Previous message in Thread: Robinson, Norman B - Washington, DC: "Re: fundamental alteration"