Thread Subject: Re: functional performance criteria

From: Jim Tobias
Date: Wed, Jul 18 2007 12:00 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Takemura, Michael (HP Accessibility): "functional performance criteria"
• Previous message in thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: functional performance criteria"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

I agree -- there should be such a mapping. Iy would not imply that those
provisions were sufficient, but it would provide the necessary connection
between the abstract nature of the FPCs and the technical specificity of the
provisions.


******
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
+1 732.441.0831 voice/tty
skype jimtobias
+1 908.907.2387 mobile




_____

From: Peter Wallack [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 12:28 PM
To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] functional performance criteria


I sure hope I haven't been doing this incorrectly all these years, but my
take on the FPC's as a software vendor has always been that to meet any
particular one I simply follow all of the technical provisions that appear
to apply to that particular disability (bearing in mind that I am a software
vendor, thus there are specific technical requirements for me to follow, so
this is not a catch-all provision for me). I've never understood (or I've
just never found) why there was no official mapping by disability between
the FPCs and the technical provisions.

Peter Wallack

Accessibility Program Director

Oracle Corporation


Hoffman, Allen wrote:

If, functional performance criteria are only outcomes of technical
conformance, the untestability is not true.

Can we explore this as a way to come to grips with the testability of
functional performance criteria?



Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303



_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Baker, Robert
C.
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 11:56 AM
To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
Subject: RE: [teitac-general] functional performance criteria


With all due respect, the best meets selection is supportable in court only
if the agency adheres to a systematic well defined evaluation process to
make a selection. Anything otherwise is subject to a protest. The
functional performance criteria, given that they are not testable, cannot be
used to make a selection without significant risk to the Procurement
Official and the agency.

Robert Baker

_____

From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = on behalf of Hoffman, Allen
Sent: Wed 7/18/2007 11:27 AM
To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] functional performance criteria



Expanding FPC may make far more items less-than fully conforming, yes,
which will increase for some time the "best meets" selection. "best
meets" is the vast majority of selections anyway, so the change won't be
that significant.

Also, what was the conclusion about dealing with multiple disabilities?
I don't feel we can really do this effectively. I'd love for us to
include low-vision/hard-of-hearing as that is the largest group of
people with multiple disabilities by far, and then deaf/blind. I don't
think we have unique requirements for people, for example, blind,motor
limitations, and deaf that are accepted requirements.

• Next message in Thread: Takemura, Michael (HP Accessibility): "functional performance criteria"
• Previous message in Thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: functional performance criteria"