Thread Subject: Functional Performance Criteria Issues and recommendations

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Jan 08 2008 1:45 AM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: None
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

To facilitate tomorrow's (today's) discussion - here are some notes and
recommendations/language to help facilitate and focus the discussion.



Sorry these are late but I got in late due to airplane fun and just pulled
them together.



Issue 1: Are FPC guidance or requirements

Issue 2: Where do the FPC go.

Issue 3: How are the FPC applied

Issue 4: Should the Functional Performance Criteria be more Testable

Issue 5: What does "through AT" mean.




Issue 1: Are FPC guidance or requirements




General Committee found that 508 Statute says the Access Board (and
therefore we) must create FUNCTIONAL and TECHNICAL CRITERIA.

The committee concluded that this said that both "Functional" and
"Technical" are "Criteria" and must be met.



Recommendation: They we keep them as "Criteria" for meeting the standard as
specified in the statute




Issue 2: Where do the FPC go.




Currently : they are after the technical

Pedagogically: they could go before since they are the higher level
requirements

Practically: people do the technical first and then look at functional to
see if they need to do more or are done.

The current 508 standard says: (from Subpart B preamble)

"(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."

And (from Subpart C preamble)

"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."



These both seem to indicate that the FPC usually get looked at after the
technical provisions are done.



Recommendation: That the FPC be positioned AFTER the Technical (as they are
now) and as they are likely to be used






Issue 3: How are the FPC applied




This one is more complicated due to the fact that people interpret the
current FPC differently



SOME: Say that they are not testable and do not need to be met



SOME: Say that they are only applied if there are no technical provisions
that cover the product

- the FAQ is cited that says that FPC do not need to be used if
technical provisions

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.

- Not clear from this text however is how you test to determine
that "provisions in Subpart B fully address the product or service being
procured". The only known way to do this is to see if meeting the
technical criteria does indeed allow you to meet the FPC. The General
group solicited other ways to determine this and none were found.





SOME: Say that FPC are the final test after doing the technical provisions.


- They cite the fact that the statute requires both functional and
technical

- They also cite the paragraphs from the existing 508 regulations
that say they should be used for a variety of reasons including

1. Overall Product Evaluation

2. For technologies or components for which there aren't specific
technical provisions

3. To ensure that the individual accessible components work together
to create an accessible product

(from Subpart B preamble)

"(Functional 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."

And (from Subpart C preamble)

"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."

- Further they are concerned that reducing its role from the three
roles in the current standard would weaken the standard.



SOME: Felt that the FPC were a justification for equivalent facilitation and
that that was another role for the FPC



SOME: Felt that equivalent facilitation was an option independent of the FPC
(so it was not a role of the FPC though the FPC could still be useful to
test the results as always)



SOME: Felt that you could MEET a technical provision with equivalent
facilitation rather than thinking of equivalent facilitation as something
you did at the FPC level after you failed the technical requirement.



Recommendation: That the current roles and language be brought forward into
the next version by using the following as the preamble to the FPC section.



[The] functional performance criteria [are] for

- overall product evaluation

- for technologies or components for which there is no specific
requirement under other sections. [and]

- to ensure that the individual accessible components work together
to create an accessible product."



Except for the three words in square brackets [The], [are], and [and] this
is verbatim from the current 508 standard but is formatted to make it easier
to see the three roles -- in keeping with the formatting we have used for
all of our previous work.



This neither expands, nor reduces, any of the roles that are currently
defined for the functional performance criteria.






Issue 4: Should the Functional Performance Criteria be more Testable




Currently: the FPC are as testable as the old ones.

- But people have complained that they were not specific enough to
be testable.

- The testability varies dramatically

- Some are quite testable

o "access to all functionality without using vision"

o "access to all functionality without using hearing"

* These do not say usable by all people without vision or with all
types of people with vision loss.

* They simply say that all aspects need to be accessed without the
person using vision.

* This can be tested in a number of ways.

- Some are not as testable

o access to all functionality of the product for people with limited
reach and strength,

* how limited?

o access to all functionality of the product with enhanced audio

* how enhanced?

- Some are in between

o access to all functionality of the product visually without
requiring visual acuity greater than 20/70

* would be quite testable if 20/70 were changed to engineering terms
rather than optometric distance vision.



Recommendation 1: Although our current FPC are as testable as the old
ones, we commission a group to look at them and see if they can be made more
testable (or not).



Recommendation 2: We consider dropping the new FPC dealing with color
blindness - or change it to match the technical provision. After talking
to members no one could come up with a criterion for doing any more than the
technical provisions or for testing to see that the FPC was met except the
technical provisions (both the color and the contrast provisions).






ISSUE 5: what does "through AT" mean.





Does "through assistive technology" in the FPC (and "AT interoperability"
and "programmatically determinable" etc. in the technical provisions)


a) require that products work with AT that is available to users - or


b) is an API by itself sufficient, even if users can't get any AT that
works with the product.






The General group documented the following issues



1) Should a product fail FPC(s) and/or technical standard(s) if some
features don't work with some AT?

* what if most but not all features work -- bug in AT prevents the
rest?

* what if it worked fully and then AT changed (bug fix or new
version) and no longer works?

* what if it works with one AT and not another?



2) Should a product 'pass' 508 FPC(s) and/or technical standard(s) if
product would work with AT only if AT was customized?

* where info is not available at ALL (i.e., fails technical
standard(s)and/or FPC ) without customization?

* where customization is needed to work efficiently?



3) Should a product 'pass' 508 FPC(s) and/or technical standard(s) if
product won't work with any AT that users can get

* if there is an API but not product supports the API?

* If there is an API but it only works with AT that users cannot
get?







Recommendation:



1) We require that there be actual AT that users can get that would
provide access in order to meet 508.

a. We do NOT require that it be the AT that users currently have

b. We DO require that AT exist

c. We DO recognize that, where there is more than one way to do
something, AT only needs to work with all components necessary to "access
all information and functionality" of the product. It is not necessary to
access all features if they are redundant. (e.g. One can print using the
print command in the menu. One does not necessarily need to access the
print button in the toolbar as well - though that is preferable and
desirable.)

d. We DO recognize that products may work except for specific aspects
that are due to bugs in AT and we find a graceful way for companies to make
these known (since they can block use by government employees) but do it in
a non-pejorative way (since it may be beyond the control of the vendor).

e. We DO encourage the ATIA to publish list of tools (and develop
them if and as possible) that can be used to test for compatibility with
whole classes of AT where that is possible (e.g. USB based alternate
keyboards) and then work with researchers, industry and AT vendors to
continually extend what can be done in this regard.





2) We draft a group to work on text to reflect this in our
recommendation language. .








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/> 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/>
http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/

<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: None