Thread Subject: Re: Best Meets vs. FullUseinFunctional PerformanceCriteria

From: Tom Brett
Date: Tue, May 01 2007 6:00 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: None
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Tom Brett
"Do I understand Best Value correctly? That it means that accessibility is
just considered another value or thing to consider in purchasing and that it
doesn t get more weight than other business considerations? If so then I
think that is not the intent of the law. Or does it mean something else?"

Best Value is just another business requirement. I would suspect that in
this Fiscal Year's government arena best value is being considered with more
weight. When a decision to buy is made and the business requirements are
defined, best value is one of those requirements and accessibility becomes
an add on.



-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 7:40 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility
Subcommittee'; 'Subpart A Workgroup TEITAC'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] [teitac-general] Best Meets vs. Full
UseinFunctional PerformanceCriteria

Best meets though is what we have all been looking at. That is - if you
can't meet all of the provisions - which product best meets them. This
would yield best accessibility which is the function of this standard.

Do I understand Best Value correctly? That it means that accessibility is
just considered another value or thing to consider in purchasing and that it
doesnt get more weight than other business considerations? If so then I
think that is not the intent of the law. Or does it mean something else?

Thanks


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

> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-general-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Deborah Buck
> Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 4:01 PM
> To: Subpart A Workgroup TEITAC; 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility
> Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] [teitac-subparta] Best Meets vs. Full Use
> inFunctional PerformanceCriteria
>
> I think it is still premature to say there is support to using "Best
> Meets". Many are still uncertain what that really means and it appears
> that at the federal level their is inconsistency is how Best Meets is
> viewed and implemented across federal agencies. "Best Meets" is not a
> standard practice at the state level-whereas Best Value is often a
> required practice in many state procurement laws.
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 16:28:52
> To:"'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'"<teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Cc:'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee' < = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Best Meets vs. Full Use in Functional
> Performance
> Criteria
>
> "Best meets" is used by the federal government and some states to
> determine which products to procure to comply with Section 508 (in cases
> where there are no products meeting all applicable standards). Based on
> proposals from the Subpart A Subcommittee (See
> http://teitac.org/wiki/Subpart_A:Application), there is support for using
> a best meets approach in the next version of the standards.
>
> However, including the term "full use" in the Functional Performance
> Criteria draft language (1194.31 a, b, c, d, e) appears to be in conflict
> with this principal.
> (http://teitac.org/wiki/General_April_survey-report,
> http://teitac.org/wiki/RESULTING_DRAFT)
>
> For any E&IT products not able to meet these criteria 100%, the vendor
> would have to indicate "does not meet" on any 508 documentation, such as
> the VPAT. Therefore, it may be more difficult for agencies to determine
> which product "best meets" 508 for those product categories where there
> are no products reaching the 100% bar.
>
> The addition of new accessibility features in products would also not be
> encouraged unless they allowed full use of the E&IT. This is discouraging
> for manufacturers who have the goal of incorporating new accessibility
> features over time.
>
> "Full use" is a very high bar. For many large office products, none of
> our users have access to ALL the features. Some modes can be accessed by
> the manufacturer's/dealer's authorized service engineers only for safety
> purposes. For these practical reasons, removing the term "full" is
> recommended. Other alternatives welcome.
>
> Aubrey
>
> Aubrey Woolley
> Government Policy and Compliance Analyst
> Government Marketing Division
> Canon USA, Inc.
> TEL: (703) 807-3158
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: None