Thread Subject: Re: Best Meets vs. FullUseinFunctional PerformanceCriteria

Note

This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.

From: Deborah Buck
Date: Wed, May 02 2007 9:35 AM

I think the question on the table is "what is the best approach". The
intent of the group is to make recommendations for a stronger standard. If
that means improve the clarity of Best Meets then that is the best approach.
We need to make a recommendation for an application standard that is
understandable and implementable. I think there are questions about how
well the concept of "Best Meets" in its current capacity is understood and
implemented. If we have a clear application process it will strengthen 508
and be viewed as a real force. While many agencies and industry members do
view the law and standards seriously and have stepped up, there still are
some agencies and industries that make minimal effort and things go on as
before- agencies buy products, industry sells products that don't conform.

You did capture Best Value in that it would be another consideration,
however, I don't think it can, or should be, assumed that all values are
automatically viewed as equal. I think agencies have flexibility to some
degree to assign some value. I also think there could be some argument
against the premise that Best Meets is the stronger of the two approaches.
How does one really determine best meets? Is it that one product meets more
of the standards as compared to the others. This is where I personally keep
coming back to a prioritization of the standards- if one product meets more
of the standards than another, but it does not address what might be
considered by an agency as a key component or a component necessary to
ensure comparable access is that product really the best? What we have seen
is that some agencies are independently prioritizing the standards to make
rationale decisions that meet the intent of the law. I don't believe that
this practice is consistent across the board which contributes to variance
in implementation.

I encourage anyone who has a strong opinion or interest in this topic to
participate in the Subpart A Workgroup conference call when we move to
address this issue and try to device recommendations for the Access Board.
The application of 508 is the crux of its success or failure. We can have
all the technical and functional standards in place, but unless they are
applied and applied in a clear and as consistent manner as possible we will
not move forward as hoped and employees and citizens with disabilities will
have disparate access depending upon the entity implementing 508- and with
this I includes federal agencies, states and local governments.

-----Original Message-----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 10:58 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC General'
Subject: RE: [teitac-subparta] Fw: [teitac-general] Best Meets vs.
FullUseinFunctional PerformanceCriteria

Thanks Deborah,

But I think best meets is the stronger language. The fact that it isn't
being followed shouldn?t mean that we weaken the standard to match poor
practice. Wouldn?t that be what we were doing if we moved away from Best
Practice?

Thanks

By the way - did I capture 'best value' correctly?


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




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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Deborah Buck
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 9:41 AM
> To: Subpart A Workgroup TEITAC; TEITAC General
> Subject: [teitac-subparta] Fw: [teitac-general] Best Meets
> vs. FullUseinFunctional PerformanceCriteria
>
> I meant to send this to the listserv
> ------Original Message------
> To: Greg C. Vanderheiden
> Sent: May 1, 2007 7:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] [teitac-subparta] Best Meets
> vs. Full UseinFunctional PerformanceCriteria
>
> Best Meets is only one of the approaches we have been looking
> at. Best meets is what is currently in the standard. It is
> not implemented consistently across federal agencies and
> States do not use this apporach. There are federal agencies
> that use a roadmap of sorts to make determinations and its my
> understanding that within that framework they use the concept
> of Best Value and Best Meets. As someone mentioned earlier
> (not the exact words) is it our job to improve the standards.
> That may mean we end up recommending a different approach or
> we may recommend changes, clearer languauge so the agencies
> know what Best Meets means and when to apply it so the result
> is a more consistent implementation.
>
> ------Original Message------
> From: Greg C. Vanderheiden
> To: Deborah V. Buck
> To: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
> To: Subpart A Workgroup TEITAC
> Sent: May 1, 2007 7:40 PM
> Subject: RE: [teitac-general] [teitac-subparta] 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
> 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?
>
> 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 =
> >

WebAIM is an initiative of:
Center for Persons with Disabilities (CPD) Utah State University