Thread Subject: Re: FAQ info and URL

From: Randy Marsden
Date: Fri, Aug 17 2007 9:50 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: FAQ info and URL"
• Previous message in thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: FAQ info and URL"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

As I mentioned on yesterday's General call, taking an engineering
design approach, the FPC is like a Functional Specification, and the
technical provisions are implementation details.

Here's the big picture, the way I see it:

THE WRONG WAY
- An E&IT company decides to bid on a Federal contract for IT equipment
- They find out about the VPAT and Section 508 and start to learn
what they must do
- They read the FPC and think to themselves "OK - but how am I
supposed to accomplish all that?"
- Then they read further in the technical provisions that provides
them technical guidance
- They implement the technical provisions, but never go back and
test against the FPC, because they think all they have to do is
implement the technical provisions.
- The Federal agency says "Well - it looks like those TEITAC folks
wrote 508 in such a way that all an E&IT company must do is prove
they meet the technical provisions, which they have done, so 'we'll
buy your product' ".
- A Federal employee with a disability comes along, tries to use the
product, and nothing works properly. They are unable to do their job
because the E&IT equipment is inaccessible to them.


THE RIGHT WAY
- An E&IT company decides to bid on a Federal contract for IT equipment
- They find out about the VPAT and Section 508 and start to learn
what they must do
- They read the FPC and think to themselves "OK - but how am I
supposed to accomplish all that?"
- Then they read further in the technical provisions that provides
them technical guidance
- They implement the technical provisions, and when they're done, go
back to the FPC to see if they indeed have met the functional
specification. (This would, in most cases, become an iterative
process they follow until the functional specification is satisfied
as reasonably possible).
- The Federal agency says "Good job - we'll buy your product"
- A Federal employee with a disability comes along, tries to use the
product, and low-and-behold, they are able to (either directly, or
with their AT).


Unless I'm missing something, this seems very straight-forward. The
FPC is the "what", the technical provisions are the "how". A good
engineer would never implement the "how" without going back and
checking it against the "what".

-Randy

On Aug 17, 2007, at 9:28 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

> We keep posting this but if you read it carefully the FAQ says
>
> " that fully address the product or service being procured"
>
>
>
> The only way I know of to do this is to check against the FPC. If
> you do and the product fails, then clearly the technical provisions
> did not fully address the aspects of the product or service being
> procured that dealt with accessibility.
>
>
>
> I posted a request to the group for any other way to check for
> �fully address� and no responses so far.
>
>
>
> So I think you still have to use the FPC � and we should make that
> clearer.
>
>
>
> PS � the FAQ was supposed to explain the 508 standards � not change
> them. So if the 508 was supposed to require checking with the
> FPC after doing the technical (as the language below clearly
> indicates) then the FAQ should be fixed so it is not misread (and
> misquoted)� and we should make the new 508 clearer so that we don't
> get this misreading again.
>
>
>
> I agree with the language in the FAQ. But it does not say
> technical is all you need. It says IF technical completely covers
> it then you don't need FPC. But it gives no clue as to how to
> determine that technical completely cover access for your product
> without using the FPC.
>
>
>
>
>
> I still think we need to look at the problem from the top down and
> see if the overall approach is wrong � since we seem to be dead
> ending with problems on both consumer and industry side (per
> previous post)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
>
> -- ------------------------------
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> > [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
>
> > Diane Golden
>
> > Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 10:23 AM
>
> > To: 'TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee'; = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
>
> > Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] [teitac-general] FAQ info and URL
>
> >
>
> > 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.
>
> > >
>
> > >

• Next message in Thread: Gregg Vanderheiden: "Re: FAQ info and URL"
• Previous message in Thread: Hoffman, Allen: "Re: FAQ info and URL"