Thread Subject: Re: functional performance criteria
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: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Wed, Jul 18 2007 1:05 PM
- Return to this mailing list's archives
- View all messages in this thread
- Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: functional performance criteria"
- Previous message in thread: Takemura, Michael (HP Accessibility): "functional performance criteria"
- Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date
Before I answer that let me throw this one in also.
If functional performance criteria have in some instances been
problematic for acquisition protests, if one were to have employed an
evaluation method based upon how technical standards are met, and how
that affects the outcome of the functional performance criteria, and the
agencies reasonable accommodations practices and policies and
requirements, I think the functional performance criteria are very
defensible. Standards need to describe this interrelationship to help.
This is the general DHS approach regarding the FPC(s).
I can't prove my premise however, but it is systematic, and if items are
not accessible because they failed to follow technical requirements,
function follows.
Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
- Next message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: functional performance criteria"
- Previous message in Thread: Takemura, Michael (HP Accessibility): "functional performance criteria"
WebAIM is an initiative of:
