Thread Subject: Re: FPCs

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: Fri, Sep 21 2007 2:00 PM

Hi Phill



Some of your questions are lawyer questions and I'm not a lawyer. But I
did stay at a Holiday Inn recently.





Let me try to take a pass at them.





My understanding of the answers to your questions are:




1) RE can AT customization be used for Equiv facilitation


yes ? anything can be used for equivalent facilitation. Use of AT is
allowed as a means to meet 508. So use with AT with customization should
also be allowed to meet 508 (presuming you actually have the customization
and aren't just saying ?it would work if someone would customize it?).
Remember it is the Agency that complies with 508 Standards.




2) RE can Equiv Facil be used to meet 508 standards


Equivalent facilitation is indeed meeting 508 (or rather the 508 standard).
That is the meaning of equivalent facilitation clause.



I would have to ask the access board if equiv facil of a provision means
that you fail the provision but pass 508 via equiv facilitation, - or
whether it means that you pass the provision via equivalent facilitation.





RE: technical provisions covering software.


They don't really. They only cover some aspects of Software and interface.
For example there are no provisions covering free space gestures ? though
those are beginning to appear in products. They cover a lot ? and most of
the interface techniques in common use today. But they are not
comprehensive today nor in the future. There was a statement that .21
did meet one particular FPC (the first one). But other text clearly says
that FPC are to be used in addition to Technical as the overall evaluation.




RE technical provisions covering FPC.


If the section is read carefully one can see that it only says that .21
covers the FPC for No Vision. The sentences before that one say that
the FPC should also be used for overall assessment ? beyond the technical.
So in general this looks like FPC are intended to be used in addition to the
technical ? not just if technical fail.




RE: AT Support.


There is much discussion on this. First ? there is no requirement on
vendors to have AT support because 508 standards are not industry
requirements but rather they are agency requirements. Agencies are (and
should be) required to consider whether there is any or sufficient support
by AT (i.e. AT that works with product) for products they are considering
purchasing ? and that agencies preferentially purchase products (that meet
their purchase requirements) that have support from AT vs products that do
not have support of AT. This responsibility stems from 508 law itself
(whose purpose is to see that people with disabilities can actually use the
E&IT in government) and should be reflected in the standards. Industry
can help Agencies by identifying what AT works with their products ? but
there is certainly no requirement that they do so (since the 508 standards
are for agencies ? not companies).




This all comes together quite nicely with your question.


> ?So is it the agency's, vendor's, or AT's responsibility to provide the AT
customization to fully support the product that is fully compliant with the
technical provisions??

I think the answer is fairly clear that all of the responsibilities are the
Agency?s. 508 does not place any responsibilities on industry. Agencies
may ask for information from companies to help them in their
responsibilities. But the responsibilities are with the agency.





I think a good way to stay centered is to look at the intent of 508. The
intent of 508 is clearly to ensure that people with disabilities can
actually use E&IT. And the 508 language is that

(i) individuals with disabilities who are Federal employees to have access
to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access to and
use of the information and data by Federal employees who are not individuals
with disabilities; and

(ii) individuals with disabilities who are members of the public seeking
information or services from a Federal department or agency to have access
to and use of information and data that is comparable to the access to and
use of the information and data by such members of the public who are not
individuals with disabilities.

It does not talk about compatibility with AT. It talks about access. If
the product is not directly accessible, then access through AT would seem to
be OK. But potential access, or future access is not discussed. I think
it would need to work with AT that the users have or can be assumed to be
able to get.



No?






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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Phill Jenkins
Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2007 11:20 AM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] FPCs


> Hmmm
> Equivalent facilitation means that you didn?t do the provision but you
provided access another way. How is
> >1. If any of the technical provisions are not met, to see if access
is provided in another way (i.e. through equivalent facilitation).
> different than:
>> 3. When the technical provisions are not met, but through AT
customization access is provided - does it meet 508?
> Not sure I see. Equiv facil can be anything at all. Not just AT.

Gregg,
so you're saying that 'access provided in another way (i.e. through equiv
facil)' can be anything? including AT customization? OK, I understand, In
other words you're viewing my #3 as a special case of #1 equiv facilitation.
So I think we agree that the FPC has a role to be used as a test if equiv
facil has been met.

But do we agree that equiv facil is not the same as meeting 508? In my
opinion if a VPAT says the product fails a technical provision, but provides
an equiv facil for that one provision, it still fails overall. Maybe we can
agree that equiv facil use to not mean meeting 508, or that many folks use
to interpret it as not meeting 508, but that there are new proposal for the
role of the FPC to clarify that? Are you saying that equiv facil is a means
of meeting 508?

> We have both direct and AT technical provisions.

Yes, we have both direct (such as keyboard) and AT technical (support for
AT, such as name & role of object) provisions.

> I would think that both are covered by technical and FPC similarly. No?

No not similarly, but if, then. Quoting from the preamble:
- - - - -
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/preamble.htm#Subpart%20C
Subpart C -- Functional Performance Criteria

Section 1194.31 Functional Performance Criteria

This section provides functional performance criteria for overall product
evaluation and for technologies or components for which there is no specific
requirement under other sections. These criteria are also intended to ensure
that the individual accessible components work together to create an
accessible product. This section requires that all product functions,
including operation and information retrieval, be operable through at least
one mode addressed in each of the following paragraphs. . . .

Paragraph (a) provides that at least one mode of operation and information
retrieval that does not require user vision shall be provided, or support
for assistive technology used by people who are blind or visually impaired
shall be provided. It is not expected that every software program will be
self-voicing or have its own built-in screen reader. Software that complies
with §1194.21 would also satisfy this provision. (See §1194.27(a) in the
NPRM.) No substantive comments were received regarding this provision and no
changes were made in the final rule. . . .

- - - -

So in my opinion, since the technical provisions cover software products,
and IF the product is software and it complies with all provisions (both
direct and AT support) in 1194.21, THEN it satisfies the FPC paragraph (a).


IF the software product is self-voicing and doesn't require support from AT
but still provides one mode of operation that doesn't require vision, THEN
it satisfies FPC paragraph (a).

In my opinion the old 508 FPC and technical provisions placed no
responsibility on the AT to support the product; only the product to support
the AT - or - for the product not to require AT support but still be
operable with out vision, without hearing, etc.

I think you've told me that you have an issue if/when the product is
software and complies with the technical provisions but that it does not
automatically satisfy the FPC because there may be times when the AT doesn't
support the product. Case #4 is when the AT doesn't support the product
except when customized specifically for the product. In other words the
product is fully compliant with the technical provisions, but the AT is
lacking in its support such that there isn't really an accessible solution
until the AT is customized.

So is it the agency's, vendor's, or AT's responsibility to provide the AT
customization to fully support the product that is fully compliant with the
technical provisions?

Or is this outside the current 508 legislation as I believe it is? There is
no guidance about purchasing the best supporting AT, or about requiring AT
to support the technical provisions that the product meets. I believe we
should just document this in the report.

Regards,
Phill Jenkins
IBM Research - Human Ability & Accessibility Center
http://www.ibm.com/able

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