Thread Subject: Re: FAQ info and URL

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: Diane Golden
Date: Fri, Aug 17 2007 9:15 AM

While the preamble language is open to many different interpretations -- the
Q&A language from the Access Board seems very clear.

"Agencies should first look to the provisions in Subpart B to determine if
there are specific technical provisions that
apply to the EIT need they are seeking to satisfy. If there are applicable
provisions in Subpart B that fully address the product or service being
procured, then the agency need not look to Subpart C. Acquired products that
meet the specific technical provisions set forth in Subpart B will also meet
the broader functional performance criteria in Subpart C. If an agency's
procurement needs are not fully addressed by Subpart B, then the agency must
look to Subpart C for
applicable functional performance requirements."

If the technical standards NEVER fully addressed the product or service
being procured, then there would be no reason for sentence 2. In addition,
sentence 3 unambiguously says products that meet the technical provisions
(as written) also meet the functional performance criteria (thus they become
secondary). Overall the language makes it clear that the technical
standards are the primary consideration in a product procurement and if
those standards are not met and/or not sufficient for some reason, then the
functional requirements should be used.

Perhaps the TEITAC wants to recommend a change from this interpretation --
or perhaps support it. However, I would assume reaching consensus on this
issue at a plenary meeting would likely take quite a bit of time and I'm not
sure whose resposibility it might be to address it??

Diane

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 9:23 AM
To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] [teitac-general] FAQ info and URL


In the original report from the last committee - they were the primary
requirements. The technical provisions provided additional detail.

FPC - The overall goal -what should be achieved.
Technical - Some things we want done specifically.

Their order was reversed during rulemaking. But they were still meant to
apply the same basic way. Some quotes from the 508 standards pre-amble.

"Section 1194.2 Application
This section specifies what electronic and information technology is covered
by the standards. Electronic and information technology covered by section
508 must comply with each of the relevant sections of this part. For
example, a computer and its software programs would be required to comply
with §1194.26, Desktop and portable computers, §1194.21, Software
applications and operating systems, and the functional performance criteria
in §1194.31.

{From SubPart B preamble}
?Also, the provisions in the proposed rule under §1194.27 (Functional
Performance Criteria) have been redesignated as Subpart C (Functional
Performance Criteria) in the final rule. Subpart C provides functional
performance criteria for overall product evaluation and for technologies or
components for which there is no specific provision in subpart B.?

{From SubPart B preamble}
?Also, the provisions in the proposed rule under §1194.27 (Functional
Performance Criteria) have been redesignated as Subpart C (Functional
Performance Criteria) in the final rule. Subpart C provides functional
performance criteria for overall product evaluation and for technologies or
components for which there is no specific provision in subpart B.?




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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Weinstein, Michael
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 8:55 AM
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] [teitac-general] FAQ info and URL
>
> My understanding is that the functional performance criteria
> in subpart c was included as a means of encouraging
> innovation. Does this criteria
> need to be revised?
>
>
> Michael Weinstein, Esq.
> Contracts
> Systems Research and Applications Corporation
> 3434 Washington Boulevard
> Arlington, VA 22201
> Ph: 703-284-6165
> Fax: 703-284-3170
>
> This electronic message transmission contains information
> from SRA International, Inc. which may be confidential,
> privileged or proprietary. The information is intended to be
> for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you
> are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure,
> copying, distribution or use of the contents of this
> information is strictly prohibited.
>
> If you have received this electronic transmission in error,
> please notify us by telephone at 866-584-2143 immediately.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 7:44 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'; 'TEITAC General
> Interface Accessibility Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] [teitac-general] FAQ info and URL
>
> So I'll ask the obvious question -- weren't the existing
> technical standards (and the current draft revisions)
> developed to "fully address"
> the accessibility of a particular product or service? If
> there are issues not addressed in the technical standards,
> shouldn't additional technical requirements be developed
> rather than relying on functional requirements to fill the
> gap? Obviously not set of standards is ever going to address
> every possible access issue or need - but it seemed in both
> the original development and this current revision that the
> goal was for the technical standards to be comprehensive.
>
> Unfortunately, application of the functional standards in a
> procurement requires highly subjective judgments which must
> be made without the benefit of standardized, valid, reliable
> measurment protocols which renders those judgements extremely
> difficult to defend, especially in a legal action. (I just
> spent the day with my procurement folks and got more than an
> earful about the functional performance standards . . . )
> They are wonderful design guidelines and to use Peter's
> teminology could be "aspirational" for EIT products, but to
> include them as a core, mandatory requirement in a
> procurement is very difficult.
>
> Diane Golden
> NASCIO
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of
> Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 5:30 PM
> To: 'TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee';
> 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] [teitac-general] FAQ info and URL
>
>
> Interesting point Allen.
>
> Another example of this was touch screens. In current 508
> you can meet all the technical provisions for a phone and
> create one with no physical buttons - just a touch screen.
> (not 255 but 508)
>
> Of course it would not pass FPC. But if one felt that
> technical would obviate FPC then one might conclude that
> meeting the technical provisions would equate to
> automatically meeting the FPC.
>
> The interesting thing is the words "fully address the product
> or service being procured". Clearly in both your case and
> the case above, they technical provisions did not fully
> address the product. There were aspects of the product that
> affected accessibility that were not covered by the technical
> provisions.
>
> Interestingly, the only easy way I know of to determine if
> the technical provisions "fully address the product or
> service being procured" is to apply the technical provisions
> to a product and then check the product or design against the
> functional performance criteria.
>
> Does anyone know of any other way for people to determine if
> the technical provisions "fully address the product or
> service being procured"?
>
> It would seem that the statement
> If there are applicable provisions in Subpart B that
> fully address the product or service being procured, then the
> agency need not look to Subpart C.
> is easy to misread as
> If there are applicable provisions in Subpart B that
> address the product or service being procured, then the
> agency need not look to Subpart C.
>
> We need to provide guidance on how to test whether the
> technical (subpart B) fully address the product or whether
> the FPC (Subpart C) are actually required in the process somewhere.
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Hoffman, Allen
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 3:15 PM
> To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] FAQ info and URL let me
> document my interpretation here, and if folks concur, then i
> concur with this language.
>
> For web sites or applications, almost all agree keyboard
> accessibility is required, but not listed currently in the
> 1194.22 provisions. This would indicate to me that
> functional performance criteria must be used until keyboard
> access is part of the "applicable" provisions.
>
> If there are applicable provisions in Subpart B that fully
> address the product or service being procured, then the
> agency need not look to Subpart C.
>
> My basic logic for considering FPC(s) applicable always is
> that they are related to the disability, not the EIT, and the
> disabilities, except when specifically contra-indicated by
> fundamental alteration, are not changed for technical reasons
> of product selection. I think saying that part C is fully
> dependent upon technical adherence to part B just doesn't
> reflect the complicated world we live in.
>
>
>
>
> Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
>
>
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Baker, Robert C.
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 3:02 PM
> To: TEITAC General Interface Accessibility Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-general] FAQ info and URL I would concur
> - "provided that a fundamental alteration would not be
> required to meet the FPC." Thank you for taking the
> leadership to provide clarity to the FPC language.
>
>

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