Thread Subject: Re: FPC - FULL USE
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: Jim Tobias
Date: Sun, Jun 03 2007 7:30 AM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: FPC - FULL USE"
- Previous message in thread: Jim Tobias: "Re: FPC - FULL USE"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
I agree that we should use the term "comparable access" whenever we are
talking about the extent to which
a solution for users with disabilities is not identical to a solution for
users without disabilities, since that is
the language of the law and cannot be modified.
I also agree that we need to push towards a suitable, multi-dimensional
definition of this term. By "multi-dimensional"
I mean at least a list of all of the ways in which the access must be
comparable, such as timeliness, completeness,
efficiency, and whatever other criteria we want to use.
However we may not be able to reach consensus on this list, or on any
metrics for the items in it. In that case we
should provide enough background material for the Access Board to make its
decision about the term.
From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Sunday, June 03, 2007 9:05 AM
To: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
Subject: [teitac-general] FPC - FULL USE
Functional performance criteria
There were two aspects of our new wording that the TEITAC commented on and
wanted us to work on.
This email as to do with the FIRST one (only)
RE Use of "FULL USE" in the functional performance criteria
Under "full use" issue a number of comments were made.
- there was concern that this seemed to be more than the Law
- there was concern this would be confused with 'equiv facil'
- there was concern that this would prevent purchase of products
that did not allow full access
o there was a related comment that all the criterion apply to the
full product so this was no different
o there was counter comment that this one feels different
- there was a suggestion that 'usable' be used instead of full use
o there was a related comment that using words that sounded like
'usability' in an accessibility standard caused great concern by many
- at end we summarized as looking for something that sounded like
"access that was same as what people without disabilities had".
- Bruce Bailey noted that this sounded a lot like "comparable
That we just use the terminology of the actual Law - which is "comparable
access" rather than 'full access".
It would require that we define the term which the Part A group came close
to but eventually turned into a note rather than a definition. But we can
turn to their work or to the report language in the law.
I have a feeling we will need to define whatever word we end up using. But
creating a new term rather than using the terminology in the Law would seem
to either narrow or broaden the scope.
Does this look OK? Does anyone have a better term that is easier to
understand but not narrower or broader?
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
DSS Player at <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b> http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>