Thread Subject: Re: Wording for fundamental alteration

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: Peter Korn
Date: Wed, Jan 02 2008 10:15 PM

Hi Gregg,

> Thanks Deb. To keep the term though (and still be
> objective/testable/defined) we would need a definition for business need.
>
>
>
> Do you have one? Everyone seems to have a different idea of what it
> means. What does it mean beyond the "specified product
> requirements" that are already included?
>

A key issue to capture in any definition is a recognition of
requirements generally understood and/or assumed, and therefore not
captured in the "specified product requirements". For example, we
generally don't bother to specified 110VAC power for things like servers
because it is simply assumed. Another example is that large servers not
be so wide they cannot fit into standard service elevators. One place
(but not the only place) where this comes into play for accessibility
are requirements around minimal use of floor space that result in
maximizing the height of a device to fit into a server room (and thereby
potentially placing controls above where someone could reach them while
seated in a wheelchair). Most of us hardware vendors sell blade
servers - and many/most of those vendors will sell pre-filled racks
filled with blade bays and blades. A pre-filled rack will include blade
bays (and blades) that will have power switches that are above the reach
of someone in a wheelchair. But a clear product requirement stating
this won't be in the RFP; it is simply assumed.

If you were to go back and ask the purchaser whether wanted only
half-filled racks (thereby halving the usable space in their server
room) or whether it was in fact an assumed but real product requirement
that it be full height, they would reply that of course it was for a
full height rack. And while we can potentially have a conversation like
this for each and every RFP, in reality increasing product sales are
"schedule" based - a product is either on a schedule of approved
products or not (and 508 conformance is a gate to getting on the
schedule), making it difficult if not impossible in some cases to
attempt to have such a conversation, let alone having it successfully.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.


>
>
> thanks
>
>
>
> .
>
> *1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration*
>
> This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in
> the nature of a product or its components.
>
> NOTE: For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration includes
> altering specified product requirements.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] *On Behalf Of
> *Deborah Buck
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:58 PM
> *To:* 'TEITAC Committee'
> *Subject:* Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
>
> I support keeping the term business need in the wording for
> fundamental alteration.
>
>
>
> Isn't one of the underlying purposes of Clinger Cohen to require
> agencies to acquire IT that meets their business needs? Does
> Clinger Cohen specifically use the term business need or does it
> refer to "mission and goals"? If Clinger Cohen uses and defines
> the term business needs, we should use the same definition for
> consistency. If a definition doesn't exist in Clinger Cohen
> perhaps something based on the following
>
> Business Need means the purpose, scope and requirements for the
> product or solution necessary for the agency to meet their mission
> and goals.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] *On Behalf Of
> *Gregg Vanderheiden
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 02, 2008 2:28 PM
> *To:* 'TEITAC Committee'
> *Subject:* Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
>
>
>
>
>
> Do you have a definition of "business need"?
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] *On Behalf
> Of *Michele Budris
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:43 PM
> *To:* TEITAC Committee
> *Subject:* Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental
> alteration
>
> Gregg,
>
>
>
> Sun disagrees with your change.
>
>
>
> Michele
>
>
>
> On Jan 2, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>
>
>
> Hmm
> The definition of fundamental alteration looks ok except I
> still don't think "business need" belongs in fundamental
> alteration. Product specs yes. -- and business need should
> be expressed there.
>
> It means fundamental alteration in the product -- and
> shouldn't be extended beyond that for a number of reasons.
> If a product can't meet the specifications that is handled
> elsewhere.
>
> Also 'business need' is not defined anywhere and makes this
> very important exception untestable (and very contestable).
>
> Recommend we drop the undefined "business needs" and use
> Diane's suggestion but stop after product requirements.
>
> That would make it:
>
> *1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration*
>
> This part must not be construed to require a fundamental
> alteration in the nature of a product or its components.
>
> For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration
> includes altering specified product requirements.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] *On
> Behalf Of *Diane Golden
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:19 AM
> *To:* 'TEITAC Committee'
> *Subject:* Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental
> alteration
>
> Thanks Karen, that helps clarify for me. Does the
> following capture the current status?
>
> Diane
>
> *1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration*
>
> This part must not be construed to require a fundamental
> alteration in the nature of a product or its components.
>
> /(Maintains current language with edits for consistency -
> no content change. Applies to both 255 and 508) /
>
> For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration
> includes altering specified product requirements or
> business need.
>
> //(New sentence added for 508 only. Need note to provide
> clarification about difference between "specified product
> requirements" and "business need". Peter Korn - I think
> you described this distinction during discussions - can
> you draft something?) //
>
>
> *Undue Burden Definition*
>
> Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In
> determining whether an action would result in an undue
> burden, an agency must consider all agency resources
> available to the program or component for which the
> product is being developed, procured, maintained, or used.
>
> /(Maintains current language, applies to 508 only as 255
> is "readily achievable.") /
>
> Technical infeasibility, if it is substantiated by
> empirical evidence or documentation, is one factor in
> determining whether an action would constitute an undue
> burden.
>
> //(New sentence added to clarify how "technical
> infeasibility" fits in the analysis
> - per the discussion and decision to eliminate the
> inherently visual EIT item as it is covered here.) //
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]*On
> Behalf Of *Karen Peltz Strauss
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:47 AM
> *To:* TEITAC Committee
> *Subject:* Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental
> alteration
>
> Also, as I mentioned on the phone, while not wanting to
> substantially alter a product because it would interfere
> with its intended purpose, function, features, size,
> etc. would in fact be under the rubric of fundamental
> alternation, technical infeasibility would not (and never
> has been under disability case law). It is mixing two
> different concepts. Since technical feasibility is really
> more of a component of the readily achievable or undue
> burden defense, it would be more appropriate to have a
> sentence where undue burden is defined (1194.4) that adds
> in the technical infeasibility language. The language I
> am suggesting below is consistent with the Report and
> Order issued under Section 255's readily achievable
> (paragrapsh 63 and 64 of the Report).
>
> Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In
> determining whether an action would result in an undue
> burden, an agency must consider all agency resources
> available to the program or component for which the
> product is being developed, procured, maintained, or used.
> Technical infeasibility, if it is substantiated by
> empirical evidence or documentation, is one factor in
> determining whether an action would constitute an undue
> burden.
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Gregg Vanderheiden <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> *To:* = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> ; 'TEITAC Committee'
> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:33 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for
> fundamental alteration
>
> Thanks Diane, as per discussion.
>
> Any use of the term "business needs" would require a
> definition of the term - and how it differs from the
> specifications for the purchase (requirements).
>
> Also I think technical infeasibility should be handled
> with the note posted previously.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> *On Behalf Of *Diane Golden
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:46 PM
> *To:* 'TEITAC Committee'
> *Subject:* Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for
> fundamental alteration
>
> Alternative approach to Fundamental Alteration --
>
> 1) Keep the current wording with minor edits
> (must for shall) in sentence one.
>
> "This part must not be construed to require a
> fundamental alteration in the nature of a product
> or its components."
>
> 2) Add a second sentence that includes the issues
> identified as needing clarification for 508.
>
> "For E&IT subject to Section 508, fundamental
> alteration includes altering specified product
> requirements or business need and technical
> infeasibility."
>
> I didn't spend a lot of time on the wording, just
> the concept of two sentences. The first
> sentence lets the existing language continue to
> cover both 255 and 508, without interfering
> with technical feasibility being part of the
> readily achievable analysis under 255. And the
> second adds 508 specific clarification.
>
> Diane
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]*On
> Behalf Of *Gregg Vanderheiden
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:51 PM
> *To:* 'TEITAC Committee'
> *Subject:* [teitac-committee] Wording for
> fundamental alteration
>
> Note: This exception would include instances
> where it is technically impossible to meet a
> provision without a fundamental alteration to ... etc.
>
>
> Gregg
>
> ------------------------
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> Director - Trace R & D Center
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
> _<http://trace.wisc.edu/>_ FAX 608/262-8848
>
> DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>
> If Attachement is a mail.dat try
> http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

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