Thread Subject: Wording for fundamental alteration
Note
This archival content is maintained by WebAIM and NCDAE on behalf of TEITAC and the U.S. Access Board . Additional details on the updates to section 508 and section 255 can be found at the Access Board web site.
Return to this mailing list's archives
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Dec 18 2007 1:55 PM
Subject: Wording for fundamental alteration
Note: This exception would include instances where it is technically
impossible to meet a provision without a fundamental alteration to . etc.
Gregg
------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
From: Diane Golden
Date: Tue, Dec 18 2007 3:35 PM
Subject: Re: Wording for fundamental alteration
Alternative approach to Fundamental Alteration --
1) Keep the current wording with minor edits (must for shall) in sentence
one.
"This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a product or its components."
2) Add a second sentence that includes the issues identified as needing
clarification for 508.
"For E&IT subject to Section 508, fundamental alteration includes altering
specified product requirements or business need and technical
infeasibility."
I didn't spend a lot of time on the wording, just the concept of two
sentences. The first sentence lets the existing language continue to cover
both 255 and 508, without interfering with technical feasibility being part
of the readily achievable analysis under 255. And the second adds 508
specific clarification.
Diane
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:51 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Note: This exception would include instances where it is technically
impossible to meet a provision without a fundamental alteration to . etc.
Gregg
------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
<http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
If Attachement is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Tue, Dec 18 2007 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: Wording for fundamental alteration
Thanks Diane, as per discussion.
Any use of the term "business needs" would require a definition of the term
- and how it differs from the specifications for the purchase
(requirements).
Also I think technical infeasibility should be handled with the note posted
previously.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:46 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Alternative approach to Fundamental Alteration --
1) Keep the current wording with minor edits (must for shall) in sentence
one.
"This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a product or its components."
2) Add a second sentence that includes the issues identified as needing
clarification for 508.
"For E&IT subject to Section 508, fundamental alteration includes altering
specified product requirements or business need and technical
infeasibility."
I didn't spend a lot of time on the wording, just the concept of two
sentences. The first sentence lets the existing language continue to cover
both 255 and 508, without interfering with technical feasibility being part
of the readily achievable analysis under 255. And the second adds 508
specific clarification.
Diane
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:51 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Note: This exception would include instances where it is technically
impossible to meet a provision without a fundamental alteration to . etc.
Gregg
------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 4:50 AM
Subject: Re: Wording for fundamental alteration
Also, as I mentioned on the phone, while not wanting to substantially alter a product because it would interfere with its intended purpose, function, features, size, etc. would in fact be under the rubric of fundamental alternation, technical infeasibility would not (and never has been under disability case law). It is mixing two different concepts. Since technical feasibility is really more of a component of the readily achievable or undue burden defense, it would be more appropriate to have a sentence where undue burden is defined (1194.4) that adds in the technical infeasibility language. The language I am suggesting below is consistent with the Report and Order issued under Section 255's readily achievable (paragrapsh 63 and 64 of the Report).
Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether an action would result in an undue burden, an agency must consider all agency resources available to the program or component for which the product is being developed, procured, maintained, or used. Technical infeasibility, if it is substantiated by empirical evidence or documentation, is one factor in determining whether an action would constitute an undue burden.
Karen
----- Original Message -----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC Committee'
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Thanks Diane, as per discussion.
Any use of the term "business needs" would require a definition of the term - and how it differs from the specifications for the purchase (requirements).
Also I think technical infeasibility should be handled with the note posted previously.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:46 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Alternative approach to Fundamental Alteration --
1) Keep the current wording with minor edits (must for shall) in sentence one.
"This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a product or its components."
2) Add a second sentence that includes the issues identified as needing clarification for 508.
"For E&IT subject to Section 508, fundamental alteration includes altering specified product requirements or business need and technical infeasibility."
I didn't spend a lot of time on the wording, just the concept of two sentences. The first sentence lets the existing language continue to cover both 255 and 508, without interfering with technical feasibility being part of the readily achievable analysis under 255. And the second adds 508 specific clarification.
Diane
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:51 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Note: This exception would include instances where it is technically impossible to meet a provision without a fundamental alteration to . etc.
Gregg
------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
<http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
If Attachement is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Diane Golden
Date: Wed, Dec 19 2007 10:10 AM
Subject: Re: Wording for fundamental alteration
Thanks Karen, that helps clarify for me. Does the following capture the
current status?
Diane
1194.3 ? E- Fundamental Alteration
This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a product or its components.
(Maintains current language with edits for consistency ? no content change.
Applies to both 255 and 508)
For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration includes altering
specified product requirements or business need.
(New sentence added for 508 only. Need note to provide clarification about
difference between ?specified product requirements? and ?business need?.
Peter Korn - I think you described this distinction during discussions - can
you draft something?)
Undue Burden Definition
Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether
an action would result in an undue burden, an agency must consider all
agency resources available to the program or component for which the product
is being developed, procured, maintained, or used.
(Maintains current language, applies to 508 only as 255 is ?readily
achievable.?)
Technical infeasibility, if it is substantiated by empirical evidence or
documentation, is one factor in determining whether an action would
constitute an undue burden.
(New sentence added to clarify how ?technical infeasibility? fits in the
analysis ? per the discussion and decision to eliminate the inherently
visual EIT item as it is covered here.)
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Karen Peltz
Strauss
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:47 AM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Also, as I mentioned on the phone, while not wanting to substantially alter
a product because it would interfere with its intended purpose, function,
features, size, etc. would in fact be under the rubric of fundamental
alternation, technical infeasibility would not (and never has been under
disability case law). It is mixing two different concepts. Since technical
feasibility is really more of a component of the readily achievable or undue
burden defense, it would be more appropriate to have a sentence where undue
burden is defined (1194.4) that adds in the technical infeasibility
language. The language I am suggesting below is consistent with the Report
and Order issued under Section 255's readily achievable (paragrapsh 63 and
64 of the Report).
Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether
an action would result in an undue burden, an agency must consider all
agency resources available to the program or component for which the product
is being developed, procured, maintained, or used. Technical infeasibility,
if it is substantiated by empirical evidence or documentation, is one factor
in determining whether an action would constitute an undue burden.
Karen
----- Original Message -----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC Committee'
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Thanks Diane, as per discussion.
Any use of the term "business needs" would require a definition of the
term - and how it differs from the specifications for the purchase
(requirements).
Also I think technical infeasibility should be handled with the note
posted previously.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:46 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Alternative approach to Fundamental Alteration --
1) Keep the current wording with minor edits (must for shall) in
sentence one.
"This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in
the nature of a product or its components."
2) Add a second sentence that includes the issues identified as needing
clarification for 508.
"For E&IT subject to Section 508, fundamental alteration includes
altering specified product requirements or business need and technical
infeasibility."
I didn't spend a lot of time on the wording, just the concept of two
sentences. The first sentence lets the existing language continue to cover
both 255 and 508, without interfering with technical feasibility being part
of the readily achievable analysis under 255. And the second adds 508
specific clarification.
Diane
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:51 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Note: This exception would include instances where it is technically
impossible to meet a provision without a fundamental alteration to ... etc.
Gregg
------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
<http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
If Attachement is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Jan 02 2008 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: Wording for fundamental alteration
Hmm
The definition of fundamental alteration looks ok except I still don't think
"business need" belongs in fundamental alteration. Product specs yes. -
and business need should be expressed there.
It means fundamental alteration in the product - and shouldn't be extended
beyond that for a number of reasons. If a product can't meet the
specifications that is handled elsewhere.
Also 'business need' is not defined anywhere and makes this very important
exception untestable (and very contestable).
Recommend we drop the undefined "business needs" and use Diane's suggestion
but stop after product requirements.
That would make it:
1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration
This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a product or its components.
For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration includes altering
specified product requirements.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:19 AM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Thanks Karen, that helps clarify for me. Does the following capture the
current status?
Diane
1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration
This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a product or its components.
(Maintains current language with edits for consistency - no content change.
Applies to both 255 and 508)
For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration includes altering
specified product requirements or business need.
(New sentence added for 508 only. Need note to provide clarification about
difference between "specified product requirements" and "business need".
Peter Korn - I think you described this distinction during discussions - can
you draft something?)
Undue Burden Definition
Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether
an action would result in an undue burden, an agency must consider all
agency resources available to the program or component for which the product
is being developed, procured, maintained, or used.
(Maintains current language, applies to 508 only as 255 is "readily
achievable.")
Technical infeasibility, if it is substantiated by empirical evidence or
documentation, is one factor in determining whether an action would
constitute an undue burden.
(New sentence added to clarify how "technical infeasibility" fits in the
analysis - per the discussion and decision to eliminate the inherently
visual EIT item as it is covered here.)
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Karen Peltz
Strauss
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:47 AM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Also, as I mentioned on the phone, while not wanting to substantially alter
a product because it would interfere with its intended purpose, function,
features, size, etc. would in fact be under the rubric of fundamental
alternation, technical infeasibility would not (and never has been under
disability case law). It is mixing two different concepts. Since technical
feasibility is really more of a component of the readily achievable or undue
burden defense, it would be more appropriate to have a sentence where undue
burden is defined (1194.4) that adds in the technical infeasibility
language. The language I am suggesting below is consistent with the Report
and Order issued under Section 255's readily achievable (paragrapsh 63 and
64 of the Report).
Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether
an action would result in an undue burden, an agency must consider all
agency resources available to the program or component for which the product
is being developed, procured, maintained, or used. Technical infeasibility,
if it is substantiated by empirical evidence or documentation, is one factor
in determining whether an action would constitute an undue burden.
Karen
----- Original Message -----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC Committee'
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Thanks Diane, as per discussion.
Any use of the term "business needs" would require a definition of the term
- and how it differs from the specifications for the purchase
(requirements).
Also I think technical infeasibility should be handled with the note posted
previously.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:46 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Alternative approach to Fundamental Alteration --
1) Keep the current wording with minor edits (must for shall) in sentence
one.
"This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a product or its components."
2) Add a second sentence that includes the issues identified as needing
clarification for 508.
"For E&IT subject to Section 508, fundamental alteration includes altering
specified product requirements or business need and technical
infeasibility."
I didn't spend a lot of time on the wording, just the concept of two
sentences. The first sentence lets the existing language continue to cover
both 255 and 508, without interfering with technical feasibility being part
of the readily achievable analysis under 255. And the second adds 508
specific clarification.
Diane
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:51 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Note: This exception would include instances where it is technically
impossible to meet a provision without a fundamental alteration to ... etc.
Gregg
------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
_____
From: Michele Budris
Date: Wed, Jan 02 2008 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: Wording for fundamental alteration
Gregg,
Sun disagrees with your change.
Michele
On Jan 2, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> Hmm
> The definition of fundamental alteration looks ok except I still
> don't think âbusiness needâ belongs in fundamental alteration.
> Product specs yes. â and business need should be expressed there.
>
>
>
> It means fundamental alteration in the product â and shouldnât be
> extended beyond that for a number of reasons. If a product can't
> meet the specifications that is handled elsewhere.
>
>
>
> Also âbusiness needâ is not defined anywhere and makes this very
> important exception untestable (and very contestable).
>
>
>
> Recommend we drop the undefined âbusiness needsâ and use Dianeâs
> suggestion but stop after product requirements.
>
>
>
> That would make it:
>
>
>
> 1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration
>
> This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration
> in the nature of a product or its components.
>
>
>
> For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration includes
> altering specified product requirements.
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:19 AM
> To: 'TEITAC Committee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
>
> Thanks Karen, that helps clarify for me. Does the following
> capture the current status?
>
>
>
> Diane
>
>
>
> 1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration
>
> This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration
> in the nature of a product or its components.
>
> (Maintains current language with edits for consistency - no content
> change. Applies to both 255 and 508)
>
>
>
> For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration includes
> altering specified product requirements or business need.
>
> (New sentence added for 508 only. Need note to provide
> clarification about difference between "specified product
> requirements" and "business need". Peter Korn - I think you
> described this distinction during discussions - can you draft
> something?)
>
>
> Undue Burden Definition
> Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In
> determining whether an action would result in an undue burden, an
> agency must consider all agency resources available to the program
> or component for which the product is being developed, procured,
> maintained, or used.
>
> (Maintains current language, applies to 508 only as 255 is "readily
> achievable.")
>
>
>
> Technical infeasibility, if it is substantiated by empirical
> evidence or documentation, is one factor in determining whether an
> action would constitute an undue burden.
>
> (New sentence added to clarify how "technical infeasibility" fits
> in the analysis - per the discussion and decision to eliminate the
> inherently visual EIT item as it is covered here.)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Karen Peltz Strauss
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:47 AM
> To: TEITAC Committee
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
>
> Also, as I mentioned on the phone, while not wanting to
> substantially alter a product because it would interfere with its
> intended purpose, function, features, size, etc. would in fact be
> under the rubric of fundamental alternation, technical
> infeasibility would not (and never has been under disability case
> law). It is mixing two different concepts. Since technical
> feasibility is really more of a component of the readily achievable
> or undue burden defense, it would be more appropriate to have a
> sentence where undue burden is defined (1194.4) that adds in the
> technical infeasibility language. The language I am suggesting
> below is consistent with the Report and Order issued under Section
> 255's readily achievable (paragrapsh 63 and 64 of the Report).
>
>
>
> Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In
> determining whether an action would result in an undue burden, an
> agency must consider all agency resources available to the program
> or component for which the product is being developed, procured,
> maintained, or used. Technical infeasibility, if it is
> substantiated by empirical evidence or documentation, is one factor
> in determining whether an action would constitute an undue burden.
>
>
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Gregg Vanderheiden
>
> To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC Committee'
>
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:33 PM
>
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
>
>
>
> Thanks Diane, as per discussion.
>
>
>
> Any use of the term "business needs" would require a definition of
> the term - and how it differs from the specifications for the
> purchase (requirements).
>
>
>
> Also I think technical infeasibility should be handled with the
> note posted previously.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:46 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Committee'
> Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
>
> Alternative approach to Fundamental Alteration --
>
>
>
> 1) Keep the current wording with minor edits (must for shall) in
> sentence one.
>
> "This part must not be construed to require a fundamental
> alteration in the nature of a product or its components."
>
>
>
> 2) Add a second sentence that includes the issues identified as
> needing clarification for 508.
>
> "For E&IT subject to Section 508, fundamental alteration includes
> altering specified product requirements or business need and
> technical infeasibility."
>
>
>
> I didn't spend a lot of time on the wording, just the concept of
> two sentences. The first sentence lets the existing language
> continue to cover both 255 and 508, without interfering with
> technical feasibility being part of the readily achievable analysis
> under 255. And the second adds 508 specific clarification.
>
>
>
> Diane
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = [mailto:teitac-
> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:51 PM
> To: 'TEITAC Committee'
> Subject: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
>
> Note: This exception would include instances where it is
> technically impossible to meet a provision without a fundamental
> alteration to ... etc.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
>
> ------------------------
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> Director - Trace R & D Center
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
> <http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
>
> DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>
> If Attachement is a mail.dat try http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Jan 02 2008 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: Wording for fundamental alteration
Do you have a definition of "business need"?
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Michele
Budris
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:43 PM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Gregg,
Sun disagrees with your change.
Michele
On Jan 2, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
Hmm
The definition of fundamental alteration looks ok except I still don't think
"business need" belongs in fundamental alteration. Product specs yes. -
and business need should be expressed there.
It means fundamental alteration in the product - and shouldn't be extended
beyond that for a number of reasons. If a product can't meet the
specifications that is handled elsewhere.
Also 'business need' is not defined anywhere and makes this very important
exception untestable (and very contestable).
Recommend we drop the undefined "business needs" and use Diane's suggestion
but stop after product requirements.
That would make it:
1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration
This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a product or its components.
For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration includes altering
specified product requirements.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:19 AM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Thanks Karen, that helps clarify for me. Does the following capture the
current status?
Diane
1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration
This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a product or its components.
(Maintains current language with edits for consistency - no content change.
Applies to both 255 and 508)
For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration includes altering
specified product requirements or business need.
(New sentence added for 508 only. Need note to provide clarification about
difference between "specified product requirements" and "business need".
Peter Korn - I think you described this distinction during discussions - can
you draft something?)
Undue Burden Definition
Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether
an action would result in an undue burden, an agency must consider all
agency resources available to the program or component for which the product
is being developed, procured, maintained, or used.
(Maintains current language, applies to 508 only as 255 is "readily
achievable.")
Technical infeasibility, if it is substantiated by empirical evidence or
documentation, is one factor in determining whether an action would
constitute an undue burden.
(New sentence added to clarify how "technical infeasibility" fits in the
analysis - per the discussion and decision to eliminate the inherently
visual EIT item as it is covered here.)
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Karen Peltz
Strauss
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:47 AM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Also, as I mentioned on the phone, while not wanting to substantially alter
a product because it would interfere with its intended purpose, function,
features, size, etc. would in fact be under the rubric of fundamental
alternation, technical infeasibility would not (and never has been under
disability case law). It is mixing two different concepts. Since technical
feasibility is really more of a component of the readily achievable or undue
burden defense, it would be more appropriate to have a sentence where undue
burden is defined (1194.4) that adds in the technical infeasibility
language. The language I am suggesting below is consistent with the Report
and Order issued under Section 255's readily achievable (paragrapsh 63 and
64 of the Report).
Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether
an action would result in an undue burden, an agency must consider all
agency resources available to the program or component for which the product
is being developed, procured, maintained, or used. Technical infeasibility,
if it is substantiated by empirical evidence or documentation, is one factor
in determining whether an action would constitute an undue burden.
Karen
----- Original Message -----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC Committee'
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Thanks Diane, as per discussion.
Any use of the term "business needs" would require a definition of the term
- and how it differs from the specifications for the purchase
(requirements).
Also I think technical infeasibility should be handled with the note posted
previously.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:46 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Alternative approach to Fundamental Alteration --
1) Keep the current wording with minor edits (must for shall) in sentence
one.
"This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a product or its components."
2) Add a second sentence that includes the issues identified as needing
clarification for 508.
"For E&IT subject to Section 508, fundamental alteration includes altering
specified product requirements or business need and technical
infeasibility."
I didn't spend a lot of time on the wording, just the concept of two
sentences. The first sentence lets the existing language continue to cover
both 255 and 508, without interfering with technical feasibility being part
of the readily achievable analysis under 255. And the second adds 508
specific clarification.
Diane
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:51 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Note: This exception would include instances where it is technically
impossible to meet a provision without a fundamental alteration to ... etc.
Gregg
------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
_____
From: Deborah Buck
Date: Wed, Jan 02 2008 3:00 PM
Subject: Re: Wording for fundamental alteration
I support keeping the term business need in the wording for fundamental
alteration.
Isn't one of the underlying purposes of Clinger Cohen to require agencies to
acquire IT that meets their business needs? Does Clinger Cohen specifically
use the term business need or does it refer to "mission and goals"? If
Clinger Cohen uses and defines the term business needs, we should use the
same definition for consistency. If a definition doesn't exist in Clinger
Cohen perhaps something based on the following
Business Need means the purpose, scope and requirements for the product or
solution necessary for the agency to meet their mission and goals.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 2:28 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Do you have a definition of "business need"?
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Michele
Budris
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:43 PM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Gregg,
Sun disagrees with your change.
Michele
On Jan 2, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
Hmm
The definition of fundamental alteration looks ok except I still don't think
"business need" belongs in fundamental alteration. Product specs yes. -
and business need should be expressed there.
It means fundamental alteration in the product - and shouldn't be extended
beyond that for a number of reasons. If a product can't meet the
specifications that is handled elsewhere.
Also 'business need' is not defined anywhere and makes this very important
exception untestable (and very contestable).
Recommend we drop the undefined "business needs" and use Diane's suggestion
but stop after product requirements.
That would make it:
1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration
This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a product or its components.
For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration includes altering
specified product requirements.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:19 AM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Thanks Karen, that helps clarify for me. Does the following capture the
current status?
Diane
1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration
This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a product or its components.
(Maintains current language with edits for consistency - no content change.
Applies to both 255 and 508)
For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration includes altering
specified product requirements or business need.
(New sentence added for 508 only. Need note to provide clarification about
difference between "specified product requirements" and "business need".
Peter Korn - I think you described this distinction during discussions - can
you draft something?)
Undue Burden Definition
Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether
an action would result in an undue burden, an agency must consider all
agency resources available to the program or component for which the product
is being developed, procured, maintained, or used.
(Maintains current language, applies to 508 only as 255 is "readily
achievable.")
Technical infeasibility, if it is substantiated by empirical evidence or
documentation, is one factor in determining whether an action would
constitute an undue burden.
(New sentence added to clarify how "technical infeasibility" fits in the
analysis - per the discussion and decision to eliminate the inherently
visual EIT item as it is covered here.)
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Karen Peltz
Strauss
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:47 AM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Also, as I mentioned on the phone, while not wanting to substantially alter
a product because it would interfere with its intended purpose, function,
features, size, etc. would in fact be under the rubric of fundamental
alternation, technical infeasibility would not (and never has been under
disability case law). It is mixing two different concepts. Since technical
feasibility is really more of a component of the readily achievable or undue
burden defense, it would be more appropriate to have a sentence where undue
burden is defined (1194.4) that adds in the technical infeasibility
language. The language I am suggesting below is consistent with the Report
and Order issued under Section 255's readily achievable (paragrapsh 63 and
64 of the Report).
Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether
an action would result in an undue burden, an agency must consider all
agency resources available to the program or component for which the product
is being developed, procured, maintained, or used. Technical infeasibility,
if it is substantiated by empirical evidence or documentation, is one factor
in determining whether an action would constitute an undue burden.
Karen
----- Original Message -----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC Committee'
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Thanks Diane, as per discussion.
Any use of the term "business needs" would require a definition of the term
- and how it differs from the specifications for the purchase
(requirements).
Also I think technical infeasibility should be handled with the note posted
previously.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:46 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Alternative approach to Fundamental Alteration --
1) Keep the current wording with minor edits (must for shall) in sentence
one.
"This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a product or its components."
2) Add a second sentence that includes the issues identified as needing
clarification for 508.
"For E&IT subject to Section 508, fundamental alteration includes altering
specified product requirements or business need and technical
infeasibility."
I didn't spend a lot of time on the wording, just the concept of two
sentences. The first sentence lets the existing language continue to cover
both 255 and 508, without interfering with technical feasibility being part
of the readily achievable analysis under 255. And the second adds 508
specific clarification.
Diane
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:51 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Note: This exception would include instances where it is technically
impossible to meet a provision without a fundamental alteration to ... etc.
Gregg
------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
_____
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Jan 02 2008 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: Wording for fundamental alteration
Thanks Deb. To keep the term though (and still be
objective/testable/defined) we would need a definition for business need.
Do you have one? Everyone seems to have a different idea of what it
means. What does it mean beyond the
"specified product requirements" that are already included?
thanks
1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration
This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a product or its components.
NOTE: For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration includes
altering specified product requirements.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Deborah Buck
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:58 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
I support keeping the term business need in the wording for fundamental
alteration.
Isn't one of the underlying purposes of Clinger Cohen to require agencies to
acquire IT that meets their business needs? Does Clinger Cohen specifically
use the term business need or does it refer to "mission and goals"? If
Clinger Cohen uses and defines the term business needs, we should use the
same definition for consistency. If a definition doesn't exist in Clinger
Cohen perhaps something based on the following
Business Need means the purpose, scope and requirements for the product or
solution necessary for the agency to meet their mission and goals.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 2:28 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Do you have a definition of "business need"?
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Michele
Budris
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:43 PM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Gregg,
Sun disagrees with your change.
Michele
On Jan 2, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
Hmm
The definition of fundamental alteration looks ok except I still don't think
"business need" belongs in fundamental alteration. Product specs yes. -
and business need should be expressed there.
It means fundamental alteration in the product - and shouldn't be extended
beyond that for a number of reasons. If a product can't meet the
specifications that is handled elsewhere.
Also 'business need' is not defined anywhere and makes this very important
exception untestable (and very contestable).
Recommend we drop the undefined "business needs" and use Diane's suggestion
but stop after product requirements.
That would make it:
1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration
This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a product or its components.
For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration includes altering
specified product requirements.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:19 AM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Thanks Karen, that helps clarify for me. Does the following capture the
current status?
Diane
1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration
This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a product or its components.
(Maintains current language with edits for consistency - no content change.
Applies to both 255 and 508)
For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration includes altering
specified product requirements or business need.
(New sentence added for 508 only. Need note to provide clarification about
difference between "specified product requirements" and "business need".
Peter Korn - I think you described this distinction during discussions - can
you draft something?)
Undue Burden Definition
Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether
an action would result in an undue burden, an agency must consider all
agency resources available to the program or component for which the product
is being developed, procured, maintained, or used.
(Maintains current language, applies to 508 only as 255 is "readily
achievable.")
Technical infeasibility, if it is substantiated by empirical evidence or
documentation, is one factor in determining whether an action would
constitute an undue burden.
(New sentence added to clarify how "technical infeasibility" fits in the
analysis - per the discussion and decision to eliminate the inherently
visual EIT item as it is covered here.)
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Karen Peltz
Strauss
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:47 AM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Also, as I mentioned on the phone, while not wanting to substantially alter
a product because it would interfere with its intended purpose, function,
features, size, etc. would in fact be under the rubric of fundamental
alternation, technical infeasibility would not (and never has been under
disability case law). It is mixing two different concepts. Since technical
feasibility is really more of a component of the readily achievable or undue
burden defense, it would be more appropriate to have a sentence where undue
burden is defined (1194.4) that adds in the technical infeasibility
language. The language I am suggesting below is consistent with the Report
and Order issued under Section 255's readily achievable (paragrapsh 63 and
64 of the Report).
Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether
an action would result in an undue burden, an agency must consider all
agency resources available to the program or component for which the product
is being developed, procured, maintained, or used. Technical infeasibility,
if it is substantiated by empirical evidence or documentation, is one factor
in determining whether an action would constitute an undue burden.
Karen
----- Original Message -----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC Committee'
<mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Thanks Diane, as per discussion.
Any use of the term "business needs" would require a definition of the term
- and how it differs from the specifications for the purchase
(requirements).
Also I think technical infeasibility should be handled with the note posted
previously.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:46 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Alternative approach to Fundamental Alteration --
1) Keep the current wording with minor edits (must for shall) in sentence
one.
"This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a product or its components."
2) Add a second sentence that includes the issues identified as needing
clarification for 508.
"For E&IT subject to Section 508, fundamental alteration includes altering
specified product requirements or business need and technical
infeasibility."
I didn't spend a lot of time on the wording, just the concept of two
sentences. The first sentence lets the existing language continue to cover
both 255 and 508, without interfering with technical feasibility being part
of the readily achievable analysis under 255. And the second adds 508
specific clarification.
Diane
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:51 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Note: This exception would include instances where it is technically
impossible to meet a provision without a fundamental alteration to ... etc.
Gregg
------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
<http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>
_____
From: Peter Korn
Date: Wed, Jan 02 2008 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: Wording for fundamental alteration
Hi Gregg,
> Thanks Deb. To keep the term though (and still be
> objective/testable/defined) we would need a definition for business need.
>
>
>
> Do you have one? Everyone seems to have a different idea of what it
> means. What does it mean beyond the "specified product
> requirements" that are already included?
>
A key issue to capture in any definition is a recognition of
requirements generally understood and/or assumed, and therefore not
captured in the "specified product requirements". For example, we
generally don't bother to specified 110VAC power for things like servers
because it is simply assumed. Another example is that large servers not
be so wide they cannot fit into standard service elevators. One place
(but not the only place) where this comes into play for accessibility
are requirements around minimal use of floor space that result in
maximizing the height of a device to fit into a server room (and thereby
potentially placing controls above where someone could reach them while
seated in a wheelchair). Most of us hardware vendors sell blade
servers - and many/most of those vendors will sell pre-filled racks
filled with blade bays and blades. A pre-filled rack will include blade
bays (and blades) that will have power switches that are above the reach
of someone in a wheelchair. But a clear product requirement stating
this won't be in the RFP; it is simply assumed.
If you were to go back and ask the purchaser whether wanted only
half-filled racks (thereby halving the usable space in their server
room) or whether it was in fact an assumed but real product requirement
that it be full height, they would reply that of course it was for a
full height rack. And while we can potentially have a conversation like
this for each and every RFP, in reality increasing product sales are
"schedule" based - a product is either on a schedule of approved
products or not (and 508 conformance is a gate to getting on the
schedule), making it difficult if not impossible in some cases to
attempt to have such a conversation, let alone having it successfully.
Regards,
Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
>
>
> thanks
>
>
>
> .
>
> *1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration*
>
> This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in
> the nature of a product or its components.
>
> NOTE: For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration includes
> altering specified product requirements.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] *On Behalf Of
> *Deborah Buck
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:58 PM
> *To:* 'TEITAC Committee'
> *Subject:* Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
>
> I support keeping the term business need in the wording for
> fundamental alteration.
>
>
>
> Isn't one of the underlying purposes of Clinger Cohen to require
> agencies to acquire IT that meets their business needs? Does
> Clinger Cohen specifically use the term business need or does it
> refer to "mission and goals"? If Clinger Cohen uses and defines
> the term business needs, we should use the same definition for
> consistency. If a definition doesn't exist in Clinger Cohen
> perhaps something based on the following
>
> Business Need means the purpose, scope and requirements for the
> product or solution necessary for the agency to meet their mission
> and goals.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] *On Behalf Of
> *Gregg Vanderheiden
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 02, 2008 2:28 PM
> *To:* 'TEITAC Committee'
> *Subject:* Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
>
>
>
>
>
> Do you have a definition of "business need"?
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] *On Behalf
> Of *Michele Budris
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:43 PM
> *To:* TEITAC Committee
> *Subject:* Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental
> alteration
>
> Gregg,
>
>
>
> Sun disagrees with your change.
>
>
>
> Michele
>
>
>
> On Jan 2, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
>
>
>
> Hmm
> The definition of fundamental alteration looks ok except I
> still don't think "business need" belongs in fundamental
> alteration. Product specs yes. -- and business need should
> be expressed there.
>
> It means fundamental alteration in the product -- and
> shouldn't be extended beyond that for a number of reasons.
> If a product can't meet the specifications that is handled
> elsewhere.
>
> Also 'business need' is not defined anywhere and makes this
> very important exception untestable (and very contestable).
>
> Recommend we drop the undefined "business needs" and use
> Diane's suggestion but stop after product requirements.
>
> That would make it:
>
> *1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration*
>
> This part must not be construed to require a fundamental
> alteration in the nature of a product or its components.
>
> For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration
> includes altering specified product requirements.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] *On
> Behalf Of *Diane Golden
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:19 AM
> *To:* 'TEITAC Committee'
> *Subject:* Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental
> alteration
>
> Thanks Karen, that helps clarify for me. Does the
> following capture the current status?
>
> Diane
>
> *1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration*
>
> This part must not be construed to require a fundamental
> alteration in the nature of a product or its components.
>
> /(Maintains current language with edits for consistency -
> no content change. Applies to both 255 and 508) /
>
> For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration
> includes altering specified product requirements or
> business need.
>
> //(New sentence added for 508 only. Need note to provide
> clarification about difference between "specified product
> requirements" and "business need". Peter Korn - I think
> you described this distinction during discussions - can
> you draft something?) //
>
>
> *Undue Burden Definition*
>
> Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In
> determining whether an action would result in an undue
> burden, an agency must consider all agency resources
> available to the program or component for which the
> product is being developed, procured, maintained, or used.
>
> /(Maintains current language, applies to 508 only as 255
> is "readily achievable.") /
>
> Technical infeasibility, if it is substantiated by
> empirical evidence or documentation, is one factor in
> determining whether an action would constitute an undue
> burden.
>
> //(New sentence added to clarify how "technical
> infeasibility" fits in the analysis
> - per the discussion and decision to eliminate the
> inherently visual EIT item as it is covered here.) //
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]*On
> Behalf Of *Karen Peltz Strauss
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:47 AM
> *To:* TEITAC Committee
> *Subject:* Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental
> alteration
>
> Also, as I mentioned on the phone, while not wanting to
> substantially alter a product because it would interfere
> with its intended purpose, function, features, size,
> etc. would in fact be under the rubric of fundamental
> alternation, technical infeasibility would not (and never
> has been under disability case law). It is mixing two
> different concepts. Since technical feasibility is really
> more of a component of the readily achievable or undue
> burden defense, it would be more appropriate to have a
> sentence where undue burden is defined (1194.4) that adds
> in the technical infeasibility language. The language I
> am suggesting below is consistent with the Report and
> Order issued under Section 255's readily achievable
> (paragrapsh 63 and 64 of the Report).
>
> Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In
> determining whether an action would result in an undue
> burden, an agency must consider all agency resources
> available to the program or component for which the
> product is being developed, procured, maintained, or used.
> Technical infeasibility, if it is substantiated by
> empirical evidence or documentation, is one factor in
> determining whether an action would constitute an undue
> burden.
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> *From:* Gregg Vanderheiden <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> *To:* = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> ; 'TEITAC Committee'
> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:33 PM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for
> fundamental alteration
>
> Thanks Diane, as per discussion.
>
> Any use of the term "business needs" would require a
> definition of the term - and how it differs from the
> specifications for the purchase (requirements).
>
> Also I think technical infeasibility should be handled
> with the note posted previously.
>
>
> Gregg
> -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]
> *On Behalf Of *Diane Golden
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:46 PM
> *To:* 'TEITAC Committee'
> *Subject:* Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for
> fundamental alteration
>
> Alternative approach to Fundamental Alteration --
>
> 1) Keep the current wording with minor edits
> (must for shall) in sentence one.
>
> "This part must not be construed to require a
> fundamental alteration in the nature of a product
> or its components."
>
> 2) Add a second sentence that includes the issues
> identified as needing clarification for 508.
>
> "For E&IT subject to Section 508, fundamental
> alteration includes altering specified product
> requirements or business need and technical
> infeasibility."
>
> I didn't spend a lot of time on the wording, just
> the concept of two sentences. The first
> sentence lets the existing language continue to
> cover both 255 and 508, without interfering
> with technical feasibility being part of the
> readily achievable analysis under 255. And the
> second adds 508 specific clarification.
>
> Diane
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
> [mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]*On
> Behalf Of *Gregg Vanderheiden
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:51 PM
> *To:* 'TEITAC Committee'
> *Subject:* [teitac-committee] Wording for
> fundamental alteration
>
> Note: This exception would include instances
> where it is technically impossible to meet a
> provision without a fundamental alteration to ... etc.
>
>
> Gregg
>
> ------------------------
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
> Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> Director - Trace R & D Center
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
> _<http://trace.wisc.edu/>_ FAX 608/262-8848
>
> DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
>
> If Attachement is a mail.dat try
> http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
From: Whitney Quesenbery
Date: Wed, Jan 02 2008 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: Wording for fundamental alteration
<html>
<body>
Interesting points, but are these "business needs" or are they
"generally accepted implicit requirements". And isn't the whole
point of a purchase process to make requirements explicit, so that
everyone can bid on an equal footing.<br><br>
This isn't to say that this is easy. In my old days of theatrical
equipment procurement (closer than you might think to your examples),
there were lots of cases in which companies attempted to come in at the
lowest price by playing with the gaps left in assumptions like the ones
you mention. One of our jobs in writing RFQs was to be sure we had a
clean specification that would protect the purchaser against such
tactics. <br><br>
Your examples about server racks seems more appropriate to F- Service
Areas than to fundamental alteration. <br><br>
Whitney<br><br>
<br>
At 12:14 AM 1/3/2008, Peter Korn wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">A key issue to capture in any
definition is a recognition of requirements generally understood and/or
assumed, and therefore not captured in the "specified product
requirements". For example, we generally don't bother to
specified 110VAC power for things like servers because it is simply
assumed. Another example is that large servers not be so wide they
cannot fit into standard service elevators. One place (but not the
only place) where this comes into play for accessibility are requirements
around minimal use of floor space that result in maximizing the height of
a device to fit into a server room (and thereby potentially placing
controls above where someone could reach them while seated in a
wheelchair). Most of us hardware vendors sell blade servers -
and many/most of those vendors will sell pre-filled racks filled with
blade bays and blades. A pre-filled rack will include blade bays
(and blades) that will have power switches that are above the reach of
someone in a wheelchair. But a clear product requirement stating
this won't be in the RFP; it is simply assumed.<br><br>
If you were to go back and ask the purchaser whether wanted only
half-filled racks (thereby halving the usable space in their server room)
or whether it was in fact an assumed but real product requirement that it
be full height, they would reply that of course it was for a full height
rack. And while we can potentially have a conversation like this
for each and every RFP, in reality increasing product sales are
"schedule" based - a product is either on a schedule of
approved products or not (and 508 conformance is a gate to getting on the
schedule), making it difficult if not impossible in some cases to attempt
to have such a conversation, let alone having it successfully.<br><br>
<br>
Regards,<br><br>
Peter Korn<br>
Accessibility Architect,<br>
Sun Microsystems, Inc.<br><br>
<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
thanks <br>
<br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica">.<br>
</font><font size=2><b>1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration<br>
</b>This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration
in the nature of a product or its components. <br>
NOTE: For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration
includes altering specified product requirements. <br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica"> <br>
<br><br>
</font><font face="Monotype Corsiva, Zapf Chancery" size=4>Gregg</font>
<br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica"> </font>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>--
------------------------------</font> <br>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.</font>
<br>
<font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
</font>
<dl>
<dd> <br>
<hr>
<div align="center"></div>
<dd><font face="Tahoma" size=2>From:</b>
<a href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ">
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = </a>
[<a href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = " eudora="autourl">
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = </a>] On Behalf Of
</b>Deborah Buck<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:58 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b> 'TEITAC Committee'<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental
alteration<br>
</font>
<dd><font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#000080">I support keeping
the term business need in the wording for fundamental alteration.
<br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd><font face="Times New Roman, Times" color="#000080">Isn?t one of the
underlying purposes of Clinger Cohen to require agencies to acquire IT
that meets their business needs? Does Clinger Cohen specifically use the
term business need or does it refer to ?mission and goals?? If Clinger
Cohen uses and defines the term business needs, we should use the same
definition for consistency. If a definition doesn?t exist in
Clinger Cohen perhaps something based on the following<br>
<dd>Business Need means the purpose, scope and requirements for the
product or solution necessary for the agency to meet their mission and
goals. <br>
</font>
<dd> <br>
<dd> <br>
<hr>
<div align="center"></div>
<dd><font face="Tahoma" size=2>From:</b>
<a href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ">
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = </a>
[<a href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = " eudora="autourl">
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = </a>] On Behalf Of
</b>Gregg Vanderheiden<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 02, 2008 2:28 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b> 'TEITAC Committee'<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental
alteration<br>
</font>
<dd><font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Do you have a definition of ?business need??<br>
<dd> </font><font face="Arial, Helvetica"><br>
</font>
<dd><font face="Monotype Corsiva, Zapf Chancery" size=4>Gregg</font><br>
<dd><font face="Arial, Helvetica"> </font>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>--
------------------------------</font> <br>
<dd><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>Gregg C Vanderheiden
Ph.D.</font> <br>
<dd><font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
<dl>
<dd> <br>
<hr>
<div align="center"></font></div>
<dd><font face="Tahoma" size=2>From:</b>
<a href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ">
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = </a>
[<a href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = " eudora="autourl">
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = </a>] On Behalf Of
</b>Michele Budris<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:43 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b> TEITAC Committee<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental
alteration<br>
</font>
<dd><font face="Times New Roman, Times">Gregg, <br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Sun disagrees with your change.<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Michele<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>On Jan 2, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:<br>
<dd> <br>
<dd>Hmm <br>
<dd>The definition of fundamental alteration looks ok except I still
don't think ?business need? belongs in fundamental alteration.
Product specs yes. ? and business need should be expressed
there. <br>
<dd>It means fundamental alteration in the product ? and shouldn?t be
extended beyond that for a number of reasons. If a product
can't meet the specifications that is handled elsewhere.<br>
<dd>Also ?business need? is not defined anywhere and makes this very
important exception untestable (and very contestable).<br>
<dd>Recommend we drop the undefined ?business needs? and use
Diane?s suggestion but stop after product requirements. <br>
<dd>That would make it:<br>
</font>
<dd><font size=2>1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration<br>
</b>
<dd>This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration
in the nature of a product or its components. <br>
<dd>For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration includes
altering specified product requirements. <br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica"><br>
</font>
<dd><font face="Monotype Corsiva, Zapf Chancery" size=4>Gregg</font><br>
<dd><font face="Arial, Helvetica"> </font>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>--
------------------------------</font> <br>
<dd><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>Gregg C Vanderheiden
Ph.D.</font> <br>
<dl>
<dd><font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
<div align="center">
<dd> <br>
<hr>
</font></div>
<dd><font face="Tahoma" size=2>From:</b>
<a href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ">
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = </a>
[<a href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = " eudora="autourl">
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = </a>] On Behalf Of
</b>Diane Golden<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:19 AM<br>
<dd>To:</b> 'TEITAC Committee'<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental
alteration<br>
</font>
<dd>Thanks Karen, that helps clarify for me. Does the following
capture the current status? <br>
<dd>Diane <br>
<dd>1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration<br>
</b>
<dd>This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration
in the nature of a product or its components. <br>
<dd>(Maintains current language with edits for consistency - no content
change. Applies to both 255 and 508) <br>
</i>
<dd>For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration includes
altering specified product requirements or business need. <br>
<dd>(New sentence added for 508 only. Need note to provide
clarification about difference between "specified product
requirements" and "business need". Peter Korn - I
think you described this distinction during discussions - can you draft
something?) <br>
</i><br>
<dd><h1><font size=2><b>Undue Burden Definition</b></font></h1><br><br>
<dd><font size=2>Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In
determining whether an action would result in an undue burden, an agency
must consider all agency resources available to the program or component
for which the product is being developed, procured, maintained, or
used. <br>
<dd>(Maintains current language, applies to 508 only as 255 is
"readily achievable.") <br>
</i>
<dd>Technical infeasibility, if it is substantiated by empirical evidence
or documentation, is one factor in determining whether an action would
constitute an undue burden. <br>
<dd>(New sentence added to clarify how "technical
infeasibility" fits in the analysis - per the discussion and
decision to eliminate the inherently visual EIT item as it is
covered here.) <br>
</i></font>
<dd><font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
</font><br>
<dd><font face="Tahoma" size=2> -----Original Message-----<br>
<dd>From:</b>
<a href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ">
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = </a>
[<a href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = " eudora="autourl">
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = </a>]On Behalf Of
</b>Karen Peltz Strauss<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:47 AM<br>
<dd>To:</b> TEITAC Committee<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental
alteration<br>
</font>
<dd><font face="Tahoma">Also, as I mentioned on the phone, while not
wanting to substantially alter a product because it would interfere with
its intended purpose, function, features, size, etc. would in fact be
under the rubric of fundamental alternation, technical infeasibility
would not (and never has been under disability case law). It is
mixing two different concepts. Since technical feasibility is
really more of a component of the readily achievable or undue burden
defense, it would be more appropriate to have a sentence where undue
burden is defined (1194.4) that adds in the technical infeasibility
language. The language I am suggesting below is consistent with the
Report and Order issued under Section 255's readily achievable
(paragrapsh 63 and 64 of the Report). <br>
<dd>Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In determining
whether an action would result in an undue burden, an agency must
consider all agency resources available to the program or component for
which the product is being developed, procured, maintained, or used.
</font><font face="Tahoma" color="#0000FF">Technical infeasibility, if it
is substantiated by empirical evidence or documentation, is one factor in
determining whether an action would constitute an undue burden.
<br>
</font>
<dd>Karen <br>
<dd> <br>
<dl>
<dd><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>----- Original Message -----
<br>
<dd>From:</b> <a href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ">Gregg Vanderheiden</a>
<br>
<dd>To:</b> <a href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = "> = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = </a>
; <a href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ">'TEITAC
Committee'</a> <br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:33 PM<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental
alteration<br>
</font>
<dd><font face="Times New Roman, Times">Thanks Diane, as per
discussion.<br>
<dd>Any use of the term "business needs" would require a
definition of the term - and how it differs from the specifications for
the purchase (requirements). <br>
<dd>Also I think technical infeasibility should be handled with the note
posted previously. <br>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica"><br>
</font>
<dd><font face="Monotype Corsiva, Zapf Chancery" size=4>Gregg</font><br>
<dd><font face="Arial, Helvetica"> </font>
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>--
------------------------------</font> <br>
<dd><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>Gregg C Vanderheiden
Ph.D.</font> <br>
<dl>
<dd><font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
<div align="center">
<dd> <br>
<hr>
</font></div>
<dd><font face="Tahoma" size=2>From:</b>
<a href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ">
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = </a>
[<a href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = " eudora="autourl">
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = </a>] On Behalf Of
</b>Diane Golden<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:46 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b> 'TEITAC Committee'<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental
alteration<br>
</font>
<dd>Alternative approach to Fundamental Alteration -- <br>
<dd>1) Keep the current wording with minor edits (must for shall)
in sentence one. <br>
<dd>"This part must not be construed to require a fundamental
alteration in the nature of a product or its components."<br>
<dd>2) Add a second sentence that includes the issues identified as
needing clarification for 508.<br>
<dd>"For E&IT subject to Section 508, fundamental alteration
includes altering specified product requirements or business need and
technical infeasibility." <br>
<dd>I didn't spend a lot of time on the wording, just the concept of two
sentences. The first sentence lets the existing language continue
to cover both 255 and 508, without interfering with technical feasibility
being part of the readily achievable analysis under 255. And the second
adds 508 specific clarification. <br>
<dd>Diane <br>
<dd><font face="Tahoma" size=2>-----Original Message-----<br>
<dd>From:</b>
<a href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ">
= EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = </a>
[<a href="mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = " eudora="autourl">
mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = </a>]On Behalf Of
</b>Gregg Vanderheiden<br>
<dd>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:51 PM<br>
<dd>To:</b> 'TEITAC Committee'<br>
<dd>Subject:</b> [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental
alteration<br>
</font>
<dd><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>Note: This exception would
include instances where it is technically impossible to meet a provision
without a fundamental alteration to ... etc.<br>
</font><font face="Times New Roman, Times"><br>
</font>
<dd><font face="Monotype Corsiva, Zapf Chancery" size=4>Gregg</font><br>
<br>
<dd><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>------------------------<br>
<dd>Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.</font> <br>
<dd><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr.
& BioMed Engr.<br>
<dd>Director - Trace R & D Center</font> <br>
<dd><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>University of
Wisconsin-Madison</font> <br>
<dd><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2 color="#0000FF"><</font>
<a href="http://trace.wisc.edu/">
<font face="Times New Roman, Times" size=2>http://trace.wisc.edu/</a>
</font><font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2 color="#0000FF">></u>
</font> <font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=2>FAX 608/262-8848 <br>
<dd>DSS Player at
<a href="http://tinyurl.com/dho6b">http://tinyurl.com/dho6b</a> <br>
<dd>If Attachement is a mail.dat try
</font><a href="http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/">
<font face="Arial, Helvetica" size=1>http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/</a>
<br>
</font><br>
</dl>
<dd><font face="Times New Roman, Times"> <br>
<div align="center">
<dd> <br>
<hr>
</div>
<dd>
From: Gregg Vanderheiden
Date: Wed, Jan 02 2008 10:35 PM
Subject: Re: Wording for fundamental alteration
Thanks for the example. So how would you define 'business need"?
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Peter Korn
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 11:14 PM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Hi Gregg,
Thanks Deb. To keep the term though (and still be
objective/testable/defined) we would need a definition for business need.
Do you have one? Everyone seems to have a different idea of what it
means. What does it mean beyond the "specified product requirements" that
are already included?
A key issue to capture in any definition is a recognition of requirements
generally understood and/or assumed, and therefore not captured in the
"specified product requirements". For example, we generally don't bother to
specified 110VAC power for things like servers because it is simply assumed.
Another example is that large servers not be so wide they cannot fit into
standard service elevators. One place (but not the only place) where this
comes into play for accessibility are requirements around minimal use of
floor space that result in maximizing the height of a device to fit into a
server room (and thereby potentially placing controls above where someone
could reach them while seated in a wheelchair). Most of us hardware
vendors sell blade servers - and many/most of those vendors will sell
pre-filled racks filled with blade bays and blades. A pre-filled rack will
include blade bays (and blades) that will have power switches that are above
the reach of someone in a wheelchair. But a clear product requirement
stating this won't be in the RFP; it is simply assumed.
If you were to go back and ask the purchaser whether wanted only half-filled
racks (thereby halving the usable space in their server room) or whether it
was in fact an assumed but real product requirement that it be full height,
they would reply that of course it was for a full height rack. And while we
can potentially have a conversation like this for each and every RFP, in
reality increasing product sales are "schedule" based - a product is either
on a schedule of approved products or not (and 508 conformance is a gate to
getting on the schedule), making it difficult if not impossible in some
cases to attempt to have such a conversation, let alone having it
successfully.
Regards,
Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
thanks
.
1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration
This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a product or its components.
NOTE: For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration includes
altering specified product requirements.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Deborah Buck
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 3:58 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
I support keeping the term business need in the wording for fundamental
alteration.
Isn't one of the underlying purposes of Clinger Cohen to require agencies to
acquire IT that meets their business needs? Does Clinger Cohen specifically
use the term business need or does it refer to "mission and goals"? If
Clinger Cohen uses and defines the term business needs, we should use the
same definition for consistency. If a definition doesn't exist in Clinger
Cohen perhaps something based on the following
Business Need means the purpose, scope and requirements for the product or
solution necessary for the agency to meet their mission and goals.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 2:28 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Do you have a definition of "business need"?
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Michele
Budris
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 12:43 PM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Gregg,
Sun disagrees with your change.
Michele
On Jan 2, 2008, at 10:53 AM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
Hmm
The definition of fundamental alteration looks ok except I still don't think
"business need" belongs in fundamental alteration. Product specs yes. -
and business need should be expressed there.
It means fundamental alteration in the product - and shouldn't be extended
beyond that for a number of reasons. If a product can't meet the
specifications that is handled elsewhere.
Also 'business need' is not defined anywhere and makes this very important
exception untestable (and very contestable).
Recommend we drop the undefined "business needs" and use Diane's suggestion
but stop after product requirements.
That would make it:
1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration
This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a product or its components.
For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration includes altering
specified product requirements.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 11:19 AM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Thanks Karen, that helps clarify for me. Does the following capture the
current status?
Diane
1194.3 - E- Fundamental Alteration
This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a product or its components.
(Maintains current language with edits for consistency - no content change.
Applies to both 255 and 508)
For E&IT covered by Section 508, fundamental alteration includes altering
specified product requirements or business need.
(New sentence added for 508 only. Need note to provide clarification about
difference between "specified product requirements" and "business need".
Peter Korn - I think you described this distinction during discussions - can
you draft something?)
Undue Burden Definition
Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether
an action would result in an undue burden, an agency must consider all
agency resources available to the program or component for which the product
is being developed, procured, maintained, or used.
(Maintains current language, applies to 508 only as 255 is "readily
achievable.")
Technical infeasibility, if it is substantiated by empirical evidence or
documentation, is one factor in determining whether an action would
constitute an undue burden.
(New sentence added to clarify how "technical infeasibility" fits in the
analysis - per the discussion and decision to eliminate the inherently
visual EIT item as it is covered here.)
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Karen Peltz
Strauss
Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:47 AM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Also, as I mentioned on the phone, while not wanting to substantially alter
a product because it would interfere with its intended purpose, function,
features, size, etc. would in fact be under the rubric of fundamental
alternation, technical infeasibility would not (and never has been under
disability case law). It is mixing two different concepts. Since technical
feasibility is really more of a component of the readily achievable or undue
burden defense, it would be more appropriate to have a sentence where undue
burden is defined (1194.4) that adds in the technical infeasibility
language. The language I am suggesting below is consistent with the Report
and Order issued under Section 255's readily achievable (paragrapsh 63 and
64 of the Report).
Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether
an action would result in an undue burden, an agency must consider all
agency resources available to the program or component for which the product
is being developed, procured, maintained, or used. Technical infeasibility,
if it is substantiated by empirical evidence or documentation, is one factor
in determining whether an action would constitute an undue burden.
Karen
----- Original Message -----
From: Gregg Vanderheiden <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
To: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; 'TEITAC <mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = >
Committee'
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 11:33 PM
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Thanks Diane, as per discussion.
Any use of the term "business needs" would require a definition of the term
- and how it differs from the specifications for the purchase
(requirements).
Also I think technical infeasibility should be handled with the note posted
previously.
Gregg
-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
_____
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ] On Behalf Of Diane Golden
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 4:46 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Alternative approach to Fundamental Alteration --
1) Keep the current wording with minor edits (must for shall) in sentence
one.
"This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the
nature of a product or its components."
2) Add a second sentence that includes the issues identified as needing
clarification for 508.
"For E&IT subject to Section 508, fundamental alteration includes altering
specified product requirements or business need and technical
infeasibility."
I didn't spend a lot of time on the wording, just the concept of two
sentences. The first sentence lets the existing language continue to cover
both 255 and 508, without interfering with technical feasibility being part
of the readily achievable analysis under 255. And the second adds 508
specific clarification.
Diane
-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Gregg
Vanderheiden
Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2007 2:51 PM
To: 'TEITAC Committee'
Subject: [teitac-committee] Wording for fundamental alteration
Note: This exception would include instances where it is technically
impossible to meet a provision without a fundamental alteration to ... etc.
Gregg
------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848
DSS Player at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b
If Attachement is a mail.dat try <http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/>
http://www.kopf.com.br/winmail/
_____
size=2 width="100%" align=center>
From: Jim Tobias
Date: Thu, Jan 03 2008 5:10 AM
Subject: Re: Wording for fundamental alteration
Peter Korn wrote:
> A pre-filled rack will include blade bays (and blades) that will have
power switches that are > above the reach of someone in a wheelchair.
I'm definitely going to patent the idea of switches placed at a convenient
height. Oops, the ATM and elevator companies beat me to it....
From: Karen Peltz Strauss
Date: Thu, Jan 03 2008 8:00 AM
Subject: Re: Wording for fundamental alteration
A point of clarification. . The term "fundamental Alteration" applies to the product, not to the requirements defining that product. More specifically, under Section 255, a manufacturer is not required to install an accessibility feature if that feature would fundamentally alter the product. In the case of Section 508, a federal agency would not have to purchase a product with accessibility features if doing so would fundamentally alter the nature or purpose of its programs or activities.
What I am trying to say is that one does not talk about altering the "specified product requirements" or, for that matter, altering business needs, as has been suggested in the prior postings on this issue. Rather, one talks about not requiring the acquisition, use, etc. of products when doing so would interfere with the objectives served by those requirements or business needs.
Below is some revised language that is consistent with both Title II of the ADA and Section 255 law. Title II of the ADA requires state and local governments to make their programs and activities accessible (including the provision of E&IT where necessary), just the way Section 508 applies to the federal government. The Dept of Justice has promulgated regulations for that Title that use the fundamental alteration language when referring to what states and local govts must do to make their facilities accessible. While Section 508 applies to the purchase and maintenance of products, the same principles can and should apply for the purposes of defining this concept. Specifically, 28 CFR Section 35.150 reads:
(a) General. A public entity shall operate each service, program, or activity so that the service, program, or activity, when viewed in its entirety, is readily accessible to and usable by individuals with disabilities. This paragraph does not -- (subsections 1 and 2 are omitted - they deal with different exclusions)
(3) Require a public entity to take any action that it can demonstrate would result in a fundamental alteration in the nature of a service, program, or activity or in undue financial and administrative burdens. In those circumstances where personnel of the public entity believe that the proposed action would fundamentally alter the service, program, or activity or would result in undue financial and administrative burdens, a public entity has the burden of proving that compliance with § 35.150(a) of this part would result in such alteration or burdens. The decision that compliance would result in such alteration or burdens must be made by the head of a public entity or his or her designee after considering all resources available for use in the funding and operation of the service, program, or activity, and must be accompanied by a written statement of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. If an action would result in such an alteration or such burdens, a public entity shall take any other action that would not result in such an alteration or such burdens but would nevertheless ensure that individuals with disabilities receive the benefits or services provided by the public entity.
Given the above (and other language in the FCC's Section 255 rules), here is my proposal for new language:
1194.3 - E- Undue Burden
For E&IT covered by Section 508, this part shall not be construed to require an undue burden in the nature of a product or its components.
(1) Undue burden means significant difficulty or expense. In determining whether an action would result in an undue burden, an agency must consider all agency resources available to the program or component for which the product is being developed, procured, maintained, or used.
(2) Technical infeasibility, if it is substantiated by empirical evidence or documentation, is one factor in determining whether an action would constitute an undue burden.
New section - Fundamental Alteration (applicable to both Section 255 and 508)
This part must not be construed to require a fundamental alteration in the nature of a product or its components. A fundamental alteration occurs when the accessibility feature would substantially reduce the functionality of the product, materially render some features inoperable, or substantially impede or deter use of the product. For E&IT subject to Section 508, in order to claim fundamental alteration, an agency must prove that the development, procurement, maintenance or use of the product in question would substantially or materially interfere with the purpose and function for which the product is being developed, procured, maintained or used. The burden of proof as to whether a product would result in a fundamental alteration rests with the manufacturer or agency asserting this claim.
Karen
From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Thu, Jan 03 2008 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: Wording for fundamental alteration
Does "product" in our terminology include service?
Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303
WebAIM is an initiative of:
