Thread Subject: FAQ info and URL

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Michele Budris
Date: Thu, Aug 16 2007 12:35 PM
Subject: FAQ info and URL

Just a follow up to the question of text to be added about how to
apply the functional performance criteria. The follow is the text
that Laura noted.

Text from the current Q&A document for Section 508 (http://
section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=75) item B.2.ii:
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.

From: Baker, Robert C.
Date: Thu, Aug 16 2007 1:05 PM
Subject: Re: 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.

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Thu, Aug 16 2007 2:20 PM
Subject: Re: 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: Phill Jenkins
Date: Thu, Aug 16 2007 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: FAQ info and URL

Allen,
I agree a web application should be keyboard accessible. And I interpret
1194.22 (L)'s provision about "functional text" as requiring keyboard
access. And I think the 508 Refresh is addressing wording in the
provisions so keyboard access is more explicit for Web.

However, my interpretation of "fully address the product or service" is
different than yours. Since there is an 1194.22 that specifically
addresses Web-based intranet and internet information and applications,
and your example is a web site, then 1194.22 fully addresses your product
or service unless there is some other part of your product or service that
needs to be addressed. If 1194.21, 1194.23, or 1194.24, etc. (the other
sections of SubPart B) don't address your product fully, then the
functional performance criteria (Sub-Part C) come into play. In other
words, the FPC was not covering holes in the technical provisions, but in
the applicability of sub-part B for products or services that didn't fully
fit into the existing sections of technical provisions in Sub-Part B:

Subpart B -- Technical Standards
§ 1194.21 Software applications and operating systems.
§ 1194.22 Web-based intranet and internet information and applications.
§ 1194.23 Telecommunications products.
§ 1194.24 Video and multimedia products.
§ 1194.25 Self contained, closed products.
§ 1194.26 Desktop and portable computers.
§ 1194.26 Desktop and portable computers.

I also think my interpretation is in line with the preamble text that
says:
"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."

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

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Aug 16 2007 4:35 PM
Subject: Re: 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.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Thu, Aug 16 2007 4:40 PM
Subject: Re: 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.

From: Diane Golden
Date: Thu, Aug 16 2007 5:35 PM
Subject: Re: 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.

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Fri, Aug 17 2007 6:20 AM
Subject: Re: FAQ info and URL

Rather than do provision by provision examples, which may lead us in to infinite loops, let me approach this whole FPC applicability differently.

For technical provisions to fully address a product or service, they have to address almost any situation closely, and be forward looking enough to close fit new situations. This is a tall order to then also retain quantitatively testable technical provisions that don't begin to be more performance oriented, and also be thematically harmonized with other standards. The challenge in the model of, if technical provisions adequately address an item and are met model is the "adequately address" part. For some situations we are far closer to this model being easy, and in other situations we are far away--immersive environments come to mind. I think the model is fine if we include the phrasing "unusual situation where technical provisions fully address all aspects of accessibility required to meet functional performance criteria", in to the wording. At the end of the day to determine if the technical provisions indeed are sufficient to meet the functional performance criteria, we have by default included the FPC(s) anyway, so why not just say so in the first place? i think we may be making more out of application of FPC(s) than we must, as they are in my view very useful to determine if indeed items will work for people with disabilities through whatever mechanisms got them there. As long as the FPC(s) are not changed to become something radically different I think they should be applied in all situations, and in many situations they are dependent upon the underlying technical provisions outcomes, but in others they are critical to determining overall selection factors.







Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

From: Weinstein, Michael
Date: Fri, Aug 17 2007 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: 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.

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Aug 17 2007 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: FAQ info and URL

Functional Text is not the same as keyboard access. So that is one hole in
508 without using FPC.

Another is that with 508 you can create entirely touch screen phones (no
physical buttons) and pass 508 technical provisions.



In fact ? for those who are not already experts on disability (all) you
cannot tell if the technical provisions cover any product unless you check
them against the FPC.



Which company here would build a product to spec and ship it without turning
it on?

Which company would build a printer to work with an OS and not test it with
the OS and key applications?



Both have technical specifications you build to. And everyone knows that
building to specs without checking it out against reality (not just the
spec) makes no sense.

You could ship faster. But it won't often work at the other end.



Some things (like connecting an alternate USB keyboard) might be clean
enough to work that way (though companies would always test against reality
anyway).


In accessibility, which is usually much more complicated than a keyboard
connection ? it appears that this common business practice isn't necessary.
In fact you can build to spec of products that don't exist.





Having said all this ? we also need to look at the other side too.



* What does a company do if their product doesn?t work with AT and AT
manufacturers don't have the capacity to work with the company ? even if the
company paid them?



* Which AT does a company need to work with?



* If building access in ? which of the myriad of people with different
disabilities and combinations do you need to test with.?





So it is not an easy question. And we haven?t talked about the problems
from the procurement agent point of view yet.





But industry faces tough problems all the time ? and consumers make
concessions all the time (whether they have disabilities or not). We need
to sit down and try to find a middle ground instead of pushing to the
edges.



The purpose of 508 is to ensure that people with disabilities will be able
to work in the offices and use the equipment they find there (directly or
with AT) and the public and use the technology face that the government
presents them.



Lets try to think creatively about how to have:

1) Complete technical provisions (though we know they will never be
complete)

2) Reality Checks (that ensure that the technical provisions are
enough ? and that are do-able).



We don't have that now evidently (either one actually)

We need to think and work together to find an answer.






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






_____


From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Phill Jenkins
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 4:32 PM
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
Subject: Re: [teitac-general] FAQ info and URL


Allen,
I agree a web application should be keyboard accessible. And I interpret
1194.22 (L)'s provision about "functional text" as requiring keyboard
access. And I think the 508 Refresh is addressing wording in the provisions
so keyboard access is more explicit for Web.

However, my interpretation of "fully address the product or service" is
different than yours. Since there is an 1194.22 that specifically addresses
Web-based intranet and internet information and applications, and your
example is a web site, then 1194.22 fully addresses your product or service
unless there is some other part of your product or service that needs to be
addressed. If 1194.21, 1194.23, or 1194.24, etc. (the other sections of
SubPart B) don't address your product fully, then the functional performance
criteria (Sub-Part C) come into play. In other words, the FPC was not
covering holes in the technical provisions, but in the applicability of
sub-part B for products or services that didn't fully fit into the existing
sections of technical provisions in Sub-Part B:

Subpart B -- Technical Standards
§ 1194.21 Software applications and operating systems.
§ 1194.22 Web-based intranet and internet information and applications.
§ 1194.23 Telecommunications products.
§ 1194.24 Video and multimedia products.
§ 1194.25 Self contained, closed products.
§ 1194.26 Desktop and portable computers.
§ 1194.26 Desktop and portable computers.

I also think my interpretation is in line with the preamble text that says:
"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."

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

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Aug 17 2007 8:25 AM
Subject: Re: 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.

>

>

From: Diane Golden
Date: Fri, Aug 17 2007 9:15 AM
Subject: Re: 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.
>
>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Aug 17 2007 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: FAQ info and URL

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.

> >

> >

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Fri, Aug 17 2007 9:35 AM
Subject: Re: FAQ info and URL

The Access-Board Q&A is *NOT* the standard, but a guide to the standard. We are here to provide recommendations on updates to the standard. If our updates are accepted and make it through to the final rule, the Q&A will get updated as a result, so its a circle. I think the critical point here is that you can't ignore the FPC(s) since determining if the technical provisions are sufficient requires invoking them to get your answer. Access-Board aside, the other point regarding FPC(s)is that they have caused problems in the acquisitions arena for some. Lets figure out how to address that specifically rather than move to recommend removing functional performance criteria from the equation--as that, in my opinion will be taking a step backwards for the standard, against another of the Board's general instructions for our committee.

So, can we look at specific problems in the acquisition arena to explore how to make the FPC(s) work better?






Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 11:23 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.
>
>

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Aug 17 2007 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: 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?


That is a good question. The answer is no. The FPC were designed to
provide the overall guidance. The technical were designed to provide
specific guidance where specific or more detailed guidance was desired.

The technical were never conceived as being comprehensive. Hence the FPC.


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of
> Diane Golden
> Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2007 6:44 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.
>
>

From: Peter Korn
Date: Fri, Aug 17 2007 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: FAQ info and URL

Hi Gregg,

I really like your two line summary below:

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

We know how to explicitly test whether a specific thing was done: e.g.
does the product have 20dB gain? is there programmatic exposure of focus
and text and...? does the video include verbalized descriptions for the
blind?

We have major difficulties in creating explicit tests for the over all
goal: e.g. does the video description do a good job of explaining what
is going on in the video? is any potential problem with AT compatibility
because of a bug in AT vs. a failure of programmatic exposure of
information?


In Section 255, we have explicit language directing telecommunications
vendors to behave in certain (non-testable) ways. E.g. 1193.23(a):
"Manufacturers shall evaluate the accessibility, usability, and
compatibility of telecommunications equipment and customer premises
equipment and shall incorporate such evaluation throughout product
design, development, and fabrication, as early and consistently as
possible". 1193.33(c): "...In developing, or incorporating existing
training programs, consideration shall be given to the following
factors: ...".

An agency isn't in a position to test whether or how much a manufacturer
did this; but the standard gives clear guidance on what is expected.

I think it is reasonable for an updated 508 to give clear guidance that
the FPC is the overall goal. Further, to give clear guidance that:
a. If the product fails to meet one or more of the technical provisions,
the agency shall note the impact of this on the FPC (or describe why in
their case there is no impact - e.g. known AT reverse-engineers their
product such that they don't need to to the work because the AT already
does the work for them) [and I expect the agency will transfer noting
requirement to industry]
b. If the product uses equivalent facilitation to meet one or more of
the technical provisions, the agency shall note how the product approach
is equivalent, and how the FPC goals are met with it [and I expect the
agency will transfer noting requirement to industry]
c. If the product accepts input or provides output in a manner not
specifically mentioned in the technical provision, the agency shall note
how the FPC goals are met [and I expect the agency will transfer noting
requirement to industry]

I agree with Randy's summary of "how it should work" - with industry
doing a final check via the FPC to assure itself that is has met those
goals to the best of its ability. Since 508 is a burden on agencies (who
through contract language, FAR, and VPATs, transfer that burden onto
industry in various ways for the products they acquire), I'm not sure
how to write a (d) into the my examples above. Something that directs
industry to do such a final check would make sense, along the same lines
as what I cited in the two excerpts from Section 255 above. I just don't
know how to craft that here.

Perhaps industry might have a "sidebar" conversation with Terry Weaver
and others well versed in gov't procurements, to see if we can't find a
way to build that into the conversation that industry has with
purchasing agencies, since it is the agencies who have the ultimate
responsibility under 508 to purchase products that meet the FPC goals.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

> 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.
>
> >
>
> >

From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Fri, Aug 17 2007 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: FAQ info and URL

I don't think you want to go back to 255 process provisions. That would
entail companies having to document the process that they went through.

The Access-Board (I believe wisely) has take the stance that companies
should be able to use what process they want as long as the outcome is
accessible. And the process isn't really that important if the product
isn't. it doesn?t help people with disabilities.

And I don't think the IT industry wants to have provisions on their process.




RE the latter part of the post - you return to the "if the application fails
a technical then look at FPC".

If it fails the technical it fails the technical and will likely fail FPC
unless you used eqiv facil in which case you use that to explain missing the
technical.

The FPC are there to catch what the technical do not. So "fail a
technical' is not a good trigger for the FPC



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


> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-subparta-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2007 11:27 AM
> To: TEITAC Subpart A Subcommittee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-subparta] [teitac-general] FAQ info and URL
>
> Hi Gregg,
>
> I really like your two line summary below:
>
> > FPC - The overall goal -what should be achieved.
> >
> > Technical - Some things we want done specifically.
> >
>
> We know how to explicitly test whether a specific thing was done: e.g.
> does the product have 20dB gain? is there programmatic exposure of focus
> and text and...? does the video include verbalized descriptions for the
> blind?
>
> We have major difficulties in creating explicit tests for the over all
> goal: e.g. does the video description do a good job of explaining what
> is going on in the video? is any potential problem with AT compatibility
> because of a bug in AT vs. a failure of programmatic exposure of
> information?
>
>
> In Section 255, we have explicit language directing telecommunications
> vendors to behave in certain (non-testable) ways. E.g. 1193.23(a):
> "Manufacturers shall evaluate the accessibility, usability, and
> compatibility of telecommunications equipment and customer premises
> equipment and shall incorporate such evaluation throughout product
> design, development, and fabrication, as early and consistently as
> possible". 1193.33(c): "...In developing, or incorporating existing
> training programs, consideration shall be given to the following
> factors: ...".
>
> An agency isn't in a position to test whether or how much a manufacturer
> did this; but the standard gives clear guidance on what is expected.
>
> I think it is reasonable for an updated 508 to give clear guidance that
> the FPC is the overall goal. Further, to give clear guidance that:
> a. If the product fails to meet one or more of the technical provisions,
> the agency shall note the impact of this on the FPC (or describe why in
> their case there is no impact - e.g. known AT reverse-engineers their
> product such that they don't need to to the work because the AT already
> does the work for them) [and I expect the agency will transfer noting
> requirement to industry]
> b. If the product uses equivalent facilitation to meet one or more of
> the technical provisions, the agency shall note how the product approach
> is equivalent, and how the FPC goals are met with it [and I expect the
> agency will transfer noting requirement to industry]
> c. If the product accepts input or provides output in a manner not
> specifically mentioned in the technical provision, the agency shall note
> how the FPC goals are met [and I expect the agency will transfer noting
> requirement to industry]
>
> I agree with Randy's summary of "how it should work" - with industry
> doing a final check via the FPC to assure itself that is has met those
> goals to the best of its ability. Since 508 is a burden on agencies (who
> through contract language, FAR, and VPATs, transfer that burden onto
> industry in various ways for the products they acquire), I'm not sure
> how to write a (d) into the my examples above. Something that directs
> industry to do such a final check would make sense, along the same lines
> as what I cited in the two excerpts from Section 255 above. I just don't
> know how to craft that here.
>
> Perhaps industry might have a "sidebar" conversation with Terry Weaver
> and others well versed in gov't procurements, to see if we can't find a
> way to build that into the conversation that industry has with
> purchasing agencies, since it is the agencies who have the ultimate
> responsibility under 508 to purchase products that meet the FPC goals.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Peter Korn
> Accessibility Architect,
> Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
> > 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.
> >
> > >
> >
> > >