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: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Jul 19 2007 7:50 AM

Hi Peter,



See the preamble section of 508 for more info



But the FPC have several roles. One is to check to be sure that the
technical requirements cover it. it is possible to follow the technical
requirements and still not have a product that is accessible to the groups
described in the FPC. So you should check to see that the FPC are in fact
met by the product.



Today the results are mixed. But because the FPC are hard to measure - it
makes it more difficult. And people often ignore them.



(another role of the FPC is to provide guidance for technologies not covered
in the technical provisions. )




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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Wallack
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 11:28 AM
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.

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