RE: [SEC508] Does .31 always apply?

["Jim Tobias" <tobias@inclusive.com>]

Don has really captured important issues regarding the real-world
application of standards: clarity is precious when the audience is restless.
I think if we can keep moving towards objective measures via highly specific
standards we will be moving in the right direction.  I do believe, though,
that we will always need something like .31, both to cover edge cases and to
remind everyone what the real goals are.  But we should be involved in a
continuous (not every 5 years) effort to refine the standards in the face of
actual experience, not to mention technological change. 

***********
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
tobias@inclusive.com
+732.441.0831 v/tty
www.inclusive.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Barrett, Don [mailto:Don.Barrett@ed.gov] 
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:16 PM
> To: sec508@trace.wisc.edu
> Subject: RE: [SEC508] Does .31 always apply?
> 
> As someone who has to be accountable on a daily basis to 
> contracting officials, CIO managers, developers, CFO 
> officials, etc., I believe that it is a fundamental 
> disservice to Section 508 and an abuse of 1194.31 to use its 
> criteria to address perceived gaps in the 508 standards. The 
> benefits to the end-user community of using and applying 
> stable objective standards far outweigh those gained by using 
> the functional performance criteria as some sort of 
> after-the-fact "gotcha" applied in a capricious manner.  In 
> order to take 508 seriously, developers, manufactures, and 
> agency project officers require clear criteria applied in a 
> consistent fashion.  It cannot be helped in some cases, but 
> the more that accessibility can be assessed against stable 
> concrete measures without being subject to the vagaries of 
> e.g., an arbitrary version of a particular screen reader, the 
> better.  Some of the technical standards are vague enough 
> already and cause enough controversy without our pinning our 
> 508 hopes on the FPC, which would result in a free-for-all 
> push for total accessibility and ultimately a push-back against 508.
> 
> At ED, we are fond of citing the example of multilevel 
> tables.  When 508 first came out, neither JAWS nor WindowEyes 
> would honor the programmatic structured references provided 
> by properly coded HEADERS and ID attributes.  If we had 
> capriciously applied .31 we would have failed mountains of 
> web pages with these tables.  There would have been 
> significantly less pressure on the screen reader developers 
> to improve their products.  The same tables are no longer a 
> barrier to those who use the current versions of JAWS and 
> WindowEyes precisely because we went to them and told them 
> that there readers were not working with 508-conformant code; 
> we put the onus on them where it belonged, and they followed 
> the market.  Content authors, AT developers, and end-users 
> with disabilities all benefit from having objective 
> standards.  The FPC are a great backup, but they should be 
> used as a mechanism for *passing* E&IT that is accessible but 
> not specifically in conformance to the standards.  The FPC 
> are extremely subjective when compared to the other standards 
> and it is counter productive to use them as a way to fail 
> E&IT that has met applicable standards and conforms to them.  
> 
> Agencies still have their 504 obligations which are more than 
> adequate safety nets for those situations when a product is 
> conformant with the technical standards but still not 
> accessible.  Really this is the same situation we have with 
> commercial non-availability and other exceptions.  
> 
> We experience enough problems every day with agency personnel 
> who don't want to learn and embrace the 508 requirements 
> without subjecting the field to the anarchy which would 
> result if we gave the FPC full sway in all EIT evaluations.
> 
> Don Barrett
> Section 508 Coordinator
> U.S. Department of Education
> (202)-205-8245
> don.barrett@ed.gov
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sec508-admin@trace.wisc.edu 
> [mailto:sec508-admin@trace.wisc.edu] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
> Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2006 12:58 AM
> To: sec508@trace.wisc.edu
> Subject: [SEC508] Does .31 always apply?
> 
> 
> This question came up a lot early on but both the original 
> 508 standard and the subsequent guides are pretty clear that 
> .31 provisions apply to all products and product functions.  
> 
> After the technical specifications are applied the .31 
> provisions are used to make sure the product as a whole is 
> accessible.  The .31 provisions are sort of the uber 
> provisions.  In fact, .31 can even trump the technical 
> guidelines in a way.  The standard allows for equivalent 
> facilitation.  That is, you can meet the guidelines in a 
> manner different than the technical specifications if it 
> provides the same functionality as the technical 
> specifications.  When you do this, you use .31 to test 
> whether your equivalent facilitation really provides access.  
> (see below)
> 
> Here are a few places form the 508 standard and the Access 
> Board Guides that give examples of .31 applying to all 
> products - and to being the test you pass after meeting the 
> technical specifications:
> 
> 
> 
> >From the pre-amble of the 508 standards themselves:
> 
> "1194.2 Application. 
> This section specifies what electronic and information 
> technology is covered by the standards. Electronic and 
> information technology covered by section
> 508 must comply with each of the relevant sections of this 
> part. For example, a computer and its software programs would 
> be required to comply with §1194.26, Desktop and portable 
> computers, §1194.21, Software applications and operating 
> systems, and the functional performance criteria in §1194.31. 
> Paragraph (a) states the general statutory requirement for 
> electronic and information technology that must comply with 
> the standards unless doing so would result in an undue 
> burden. The term "undue burden" is defined at §1194.4 
> (Definitions) and is discussed in the preamble under that section."  
> 
> Also from the 508 Standards preamble:
> § 1194.31 Functional performance criteria.
> "This section provides functional performance criteria for 
> overall product evaluation and for technologies or components 
> for which there is no specific requirement under other 
> sections. These criteria are also intended to ensure that the 
> individual accessible components work together to create an 
> accessible product. This section requires that all product 
> functions, including operation and information retrieval, be 
> operable through at least one mode addressed in each of the 
> following paragraphs."
> 
> 
> Again from 508 standard's preamble
> 1194.5 Equivalent facilitation.
> This section allows the use of designs or technologies as 
> alternatives to those prescribed in this part provided that 
> they result in substantially equivalent or greater access to 
> and use of a product for people with disabilities. This 
> provision is not a "waiver" or "variance" from the 
> requirement to provide accessibility, but a recognition that 
> future technologies may be developed, or existing 
> technologies could be used in a particular way, that could 
> provide the same functional access in ways not envisioned by 
> these standards. In evaluating whether a technology results 
> in "substantially equivalent or greater access," it is the 
> functional outcome, not the form, which is important. For 
> example, an information kiosk which is not accessible to a 
> person who is blind might be made accessible by having a 
> telephone handset that connects to a computer that responds 
> to touch-tone commands and delivers the same information 
> audibly. In addition, voice recognition and activation are 
> progressing rapidly so that voice input soon may become a 
> reasonable substitute for some or all keyboard input functions.
> For example, already some telephones can be dialed by voice. 
> In effect, compliance with the performance criteria of 
> §1194.31 is the test for equivalent facilitation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> >From the Access Boards TELECOM DESIGN GUIDE
> 
> "  However, since all devices need to meet 1194.31, the 
> performance criteria, ....
> 
> 
> Also from TELECOM DESIGN GUIDE
> 
>    1.   A typical desktop telephone with answering machine is clearly
> covered by section 1194.23 because its primary function is to 
> provide telecommunications functionality.  All parts of 
> 1194.23 apply to this product, as do all parts of 1194.31.  
> Provisions from other technical sections of 508 may also 
> apply based on the telephone design and features.
> 
> 
>    2. A second example is a self-contained, stand-alone FAX 
> machine without the capability to make a voice call (i.e., 
> the unit has no handset or microphone for a voice call.).  
> However, the unit has a speaker to enable the user to hear 
> the line status.  This unit is both a self contained, closed 
> product and a telecommunications product.  From Subpart B and 
> C of the 508 standards, 1194.23, 1194.25, and 1194.31 apply. 
> 
> A third example is an "All-in-One" machine connected to a 
> personal computer that includes a FAX, scanner, printer, and 
> copier.  This product does not
> support voice calls.   The product includes software to be 
> loaded on the
> personal computer.  Therefore, this software must meet the 
> requirements for software (1194.21).  The unit itself is 
> similar to the one in the second example and is covered under 
> the telecommunications products (1194.23) and self contained, 
> closed products (1194.25) provisions, as well as the 1194.31 
> functional performance criteria.
> 
> 
> 
> Gregg
> 
>  -- ------------------------------
> Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
> Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
> Director - Trace R & D Center
> University of Wisconsin-Madison
> The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b 
>  
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SEC508 mailing list
> SEC508@trace.wisc.edu
> http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/sec508
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> SEC508 mailing list
> SEC508@trace.wisc.edu
> http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/sec508
> 
>