Accessibility Forum Webcast

1

• Accessibility Forum Webcast
• October 29, 2002

Our thanks to the National Science Foundation for
hosting this event
2
Introduction to the October, 2002Accessibility
Forum Webcast

• Mary Mitchell
• Deputy Associate Administrator (Acting)
• Office of Electronic Government and Technology
  (GSA)

3
Accessibility Forum Webcast Agenda Overview (1 of
4)

• 1000 AM - Welcome and Introduction
• Mary Mitchell (GSA)
• 1010 AM - Agenda Review
• Jack Corley (Forum Staff)
• 1015 AM - Accessibility in the International
  Community
• Teleconference participants from Europe and Japan
• 1100 AM - Forum Projects Review
• Bill Hetzner and Jim Kindrick (Forum Staff)

4
Agenda Overview (2 of 4)

• 1145 AM - ATIA / ITI / Forum Interoperability
  Project Plan
• Chris Hofstader (Forum Council / Freedom
  Scientific)
• 1200 PM - Forum Directors Address
• Terry Weaver (GSA)
• 1215 PM - Break for Lunch
• 115 PM - OMB Update
• Lesley Field (Office of Federal Procurement
  Policy)

5
Agenda Overview (3 of 4)

• 135 PM - Panel Advocacy / Consumer Perspective
  on the Progress of 508
• 235 PM - Review of Government Agency Surveys and
  Interviews
• Terry Weaver (GSA)
• Joy Gatewood-Fulton (Forum Staff)

6
Agenda Overview (4 of 4)

• 305 PM - Creative Technological Compliance with
  Section 508 Across Various Agencies
• Dave Gardy, TV Worldwide
• 335 PM - New Business
• Mary Beth Janes (Council Chair, Apple)
• 345 PM - Closing remarks
• Skip Crane (Forum Staff)
• 400 PM - Reception

7
Accessibility in the International Community
8
Participants

• Hiroshi Kawamura
• Director of the International and Information
  DepartmentsJapanese Society for Rehabilitation
  of Persons with Disabilities
• Inmaculada Placencia Porrero
• Applications Relating to the Disabled and
  ElderlyInformation Society Directorate
  GeneralEuropean Commission
• Judy Brewer
• Director, Web Accessibility Initiative
  (WAI)World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
• Moderator - Skip Crane (Forum Staff)

9
Accessibility Forum Projects

• Bill Hetzner
• Jim Kindrick

10
Outline

• Background to the current Project Resource
  Documents
• Plans for reviewing the current Project Resource
  Documents
• Next steps
• Overview of the Objective Measures Resource
  Documents
• Overview of the AT-EIT Interoperability Resource
  Documents

11
Background to the Current Resource Documents (1
of 2)

• Produced by Project Teams made up of Forum
  Members (started August, 2001)
• Two Teams Objective Measures andAT-EIT
  Interoperability
• Each has over 50 people signed up
• Work conducted
• Biweekly Teleconferences
• Email Discussions and Message Board
• Working sessions at Forum Meetings

12
Background to the Current Resource Documents (2
of 2)

• Conducted Project Workshops (September 23-25,
  2002)
• Strategic Management Council provided schedule
  direction
• Participants attending provided input on form and
  content
• Focused Resource Documents on technical clarity
  and shared understanding
• The basis for deriving assistance materials or
  guidelines
• Voice of the Customer

13
Plans for Reviewing the Resource Document

• Documents released 10/22-10/23/02 for Forum
  Review
• URL sent via email to every Forum Member
• Review ends 11/8/02
• Comments and issues can be submitted via email to
  Project Teams
• Project Teams will consider and incorporate input
  as appropriate
• Final Resource Documents to be released 12/02/02

14
Next Steps

• Listening to the Voice of the Customer
• Interviews with Federal requiring officials
• Inputs from the Office of Federal Procurement
  Policy
• Inputs from Section 508 Coordinators
• Getting direction from the Strategic Management
  Council

15
Objective Measures Resource Documents Purpose

• Analysis of the Standard
• Organized by Technical Sections of the Standard
• Scope of specific Technical Provisions
• Focus on clarification and common understanding
• Many iterations to develop Analysis Template

16
Objective Measures Resource Documents
Organization

• Template for Analysis of the Standard
• Terms and Definitions
• Assumptions
• Outstanding Issues/Clarifications
• Measurement Preconditions
• Data Collection or Measurement Methods
• Related Resources
• Comments and Suggestions

17
Objective Measures Resource Documents Steps Taken

• Preliminary Analysis
• Produced as discussion starter for Team
• Based on available materials Naive Perspective
  
• Initial Analysis
• Incorporated inputs from Project Team dialogue
• Included research on related resources
• Review with Access Board Staff
• Clarification for outstanding issues
• Validation of definitions and assumptions

18
Objective Measures Resource Documents Content (1
of 2)

• 1194.21 Software and Operating Systems
• 12 Provisions 10 Definitions, 19 Assumptions,
  12 Clarifications
• 1194.22 Web-based intranet and internet
  information and applications
• 16 Provisions 10 Definitions, 24 Assumptions, 3
  Clarifications
• 1194.23 Telecommunication products
• 14 Provisions 2 Definitions, 27 Assumptions, 11
  Clarifications

19
Objective Measures Resource Documents Content (2
of 2)

• 1194.24 Video and multimedia products
• 5 Provisions 13 Definitions, 8 Assumptions
• 1194.25 Self contained, closed products
  information and applications
• 13 Provisions 5 Definitions, 25 Assumptions, 4
  Clarifications
• 1194.26 Desktop and portable computers
• 4 Provisions 1 Clarification

20
AT-EIT Interoperability Projects Overview

• General changes from September Workshops
• Dropped Questions sections from all documents.
• Redundant in concept, if not practice, with
  Objective Measures
• Questions may be part of subsequent tools
• Common outline (almost)
• Applicable Interoperability Provisions
• Interoperability as it applies to technical
  section
• How EIT products work with AT
• Changing face of current products
• Suggestions for realizing interoperability in
  current products

21
AT-EIT Interoperability Projects Detail (1 of 4)

• 1194.21 Software and O/S
• Most mature, most vetted
• Includes GNOME Accessibility Framework, Java
  Accessibility, Linux Accessibility, Microsoft
  Active Accessibility, and W3C DOM
• More?
• Additional section on Evaluation Copies
• A catalyst for the ATIA/ITI/Forum activity

22
AT-EIT Interoperability Projects Detail (2 of 4)

• 1194.22 Web-based Information and Applications
• NEW
• Some input from the working group
• Concern that the technology is changing too fast
  to keep up
• No changing face section
• Needs broad review
• 1194.23 Telecommunication Products
• Fairly mature
• Input primarily from working group
• Needs broader review

23
AT-EIT Interoperability Projects Detail (3 of 4)

• 1194.24 Video and Multimedia
• Somewhat mature
• Input from small working group
• Needs broader review
• 1194.25 Self-contained, Closed Systems
• No interoperability requirements, by definition
• Functions associated with self-contained, closed
  systems are part of other technical sections.

24
AT-EIT Interoperability Projects Detail (4 of 4)

• 1194.26 Desktop and Personal Computers
• Only one provision addresses interoperability
• NEW
• Needs broad review

25
Summary

• Reviewed the development of the Project Resource
  Documents
• Completed review of these documents with the
  Project Teams
• Posted documents for review and comment by all
  Forum members
• Preparing for next steps

26
ATIA / ITI / Forum Interoperability Working
Group Mission and Goals

• Chris Hofstader

27
Short Term Goals (1 of 2)

• Identify the areas where Assistive Technology
  applications and Electronic Information
  Technology applications need to provide a
  standard means of communication where by
  applications and assistive technology
  applications will be able to interoperate.
• Create a set of functional descriptions which
  describe this communication.
• Determine any changes needed to existing
  operating systems to accommodate the full set of
  communication needs.

28
Short Term Goals (2 of 2)

• Work with the existing operating systems owners
  to affect any needed changes.
• Work with application developers to understand
  and use the accessibility communication vehicles
  in their applications, both EIT and AT.
• Forward any issues brought before the Working
  Group that fall outside the area of traditional
  software to the appropriate group working on
  those issues.
• e.g. Web issues will be referred to the W3C/WAI.

29
Medium/Long Term Goal

• Once the short term goals are reached medium or
  long term goals can be addressed.
• Possible Accessibility API that would be adopted
  by all platforms

30
Process (1 of 2)

• Proposal will be reviewed and agreed to by ATIA
  and ITI (done).
• Working Group will be established and members
  confirmed (done).
• A public meeting will be held to obtain the
  initial set of issues, requirements (done).
• Monthly 2 hour teleconferences will be conducted.
  
• Expect most of the work will occur outside of the
  teleconferences via e-mail.
• Working Group meetings will convene via
  teleconferences.

31
Process (2 of 2)

• Face to face Working Group meetings will be
  conducted.
• Proposed for ATIA conference in Orlando in
  January. TBD in July 2003.
• Agreement will be by consensus.
• Quarterly public feedback will be sought.
• Final report will be posted for public review.
• Begin the process again for Medium and Long Term
  Goals.

32
Work Plan

• Deliverables - Set of functional descriptions
  needed between AT/ EIT
• Software applications
• Set of needed changes to the present existing
  systems
• Desired schedule for implementing those changes
• Final Report
• To be determined based on public input of
  requirements and issues

33
Obtain Issues, Concerns and Requirements (1 of 2)

• Determine which are applicable and which we can
  address. Those that are already being addressed
  by other organization will be sent to those
  organizations for resolution. e.g. V2, Linux
  Standards, W3C/WAI.
• Consulting support helps us to not make decisions
  in a vacuum, and not to address areas already
  covered by other efforts.

34
Obtain Issues, Concerns and Requirements (2 of 2)

• Identify functional requirements needed by AT
  Identify functional requirements of EIT Evaluate
  the present operating systems for that support in
  MAC OS, Linux, Windows Determine any changes
  needed to each of those systems, if any.
• Describe desired schedule to implementation of
  those changes.
• Provide a final report that can be used by AT and
  EIT vendors to maximize interoperability.

35
Future Events

• 1/18/03 - Working Group meetings face to face
  proposed for ATIA conference in Orlando in
  January
• 7/15/03 - Working Group meetings face to face TBD
  if necessary
• 9/30/04 - Public posting of the final report
• 10/07/04 - Begin the process again for Medium and
  Long Term Goals

36
Program Directors Address

• Terry WeaverDirector for the Center for IT
  Accommodations, GSA

37
GSA Perspective

• Forum has been and continues to be a valuable
  experience as
• An unparalleled community of stakeholders
• A resource of expertise
• A place to network and share ideas
• Work to date has been recognized.
• Future activities should lead to tools that
• Facilitate the requiring and procurement process
• Simplify compliance assessment
• Allow for and encourage innovation and change

38
Applicability Assistant Tool

• Connect the world of purchasing to the
  appropriate segments of 508 requirements.
• Define in marketplace terms the functional or
  feature descriptions for potential product
  characteristics.
• Connect functions and features of products (as
  appropriate), as expressed in the marketplace, to
  the appropriate parts of the standards.

39
Procurement Assessment Assistant Tool

• Mature the Applicability Assistant Tool to
• Provide sample RFP language.
• Provide example practical and understandable
  technical evaluation criteria for each relevant
  part of the standard.

40
By the Next Forum Meeting Have

• Applicability Assistant and Procurement
  Assessment Assistant Tools developed to the
  proof-of-concept stage.
• A defined maintenance process that enables the
  addition of new evaluation techniques.
• Plans for using tools for simplifying compliance
  assessment.

41
LUNCH BREAK
Webcast will resume at115 PM EST

• Accessibility Forum Webcast
• October 29, 2002

42
OMB Update

• Lesley Field

43
Panel Advocacy / Consumer Perspective on the
Progress of 508
44
Participants

• Brenda Battat, Self Help for Hard of Hearing
  People (SHHH)
• Jim House, Telecommunications for the Deaf, Inc.
• Dave Poehlman, American Council of the Blind
  (ACB)
• Joy Relton, American Foundation for the Blind
  (AFB)
• Moderator - Skip Crane

45
Comments fromBrenda Battat SHHH (1 of 3)

• Great need for more consumer education on 508.
• Complaint process may not work employee
  hesitant to complain due to impact on career.
• More "technical" consumers should be involved
  where decisions are being made regarding
  evaluating products.

46
Comments fromBrenda Battat SHHH (2 of 3)

• We should go back to the Access Board to learn
  the intention of the provisions and what they
  mean.
• Neither Federal agencies nor vendors want to take
  responsibility for signing off on products
  conforming to the 508 standard.

47
Comments fromBrenda Battat SHHH (3 of 3)

• Still no clear and simple way to evaluate
  products for conformance to 508.
• Most 508 attention focused on accessible websites
  and screen readers, but there is more to 508.

48
Comments fromJim House TDI (1 of 4)

• TDI promotes equal access to telecommunications
  and media for people who are deaf, hard of
  hearing, late-deafened or deaf-blind.
• On the Internet, we have applications for both
  telecommunications AND media.

49
Comments fromJim House TDI (2 of 4)

• Telecommunications

• Video Relay
• Video Interpreting
• Video Conferencing

• E-Mail and pagers
• Instant Messaging (IM)
• Chat Rooms
• IP-Relay

• Barriers
• VoIP Technology
• IM closely resembles TTY but it is not completely
  real-time
• No way to receive incoming calls unless you are
  online

50
Comments fromJim House TDI (3 of 4)

• Media
• Wealth of information in text and graphics
• Ease of publishing your own information
• Barriers
• Current broadband policy and economics limits use
  of full-motion video
• Virtual lack of captioning on commercial website
  streaming video (News media, entertainment clips,
  etc.)
• Audio files lack transcripts or captions

51
Comments fromJim House TDI (4 of 4)

• Government issues
• Regulations do not keep pace with technology
• Courts divided on access rules in private sector
• Many agencies are complying with 508, but others
  are trying to avoid compliance
• TDI has learned some agencies are polling
  audience requirements to see if they can avoid
  captioning.

52
Comments fromDavid Poehlman ACB (1 of 4)

• Areas of progress since the advent of Section 508
  standards Sectors that have shown positive
  results and advances
• Websites are better
• Good tools which use verifiable means to test for
  section 508 compliance are helpful
• Lots of talk and generated interest
• Web development people seem to be much more
  interested at least at the government level

53
Comments fromDavid Poehlman ACB (2 of 4)

• Shortcomings needs for continuing improvement
• Accessible content needs to be provided in
  electronic form
• Many people (including those who should) still do
  not know the meaning of section 508 and the
  standards
• We need more of the human in the equation and
  less of the legal
• Inaccessible software remains a big problem for
  federal employees
• Human resources and financial packages keep
  promising to become accessible in the next
  release but never get there

54
Comments fromDavid Poehlman ACB (3 of 4)

• Shortcomings needs for continuing improvement
• Real lack of enforcement of accessibility
• Bidders with products that do not fulfill the
  promise must start being turned down
• Makers of accessible hardware and software must
  start getting the nod
• Documentation must be more accessible

55
Comments fromDavid Poehlman ACB (4 of 4)

• Activities being pursued that we hope will prove
  fruitful
• Entering an FCC formal complaint on cell phone
  access
• Federal Government should enforce section 255
  access requirements for telephone equipment as a
  508 matter.
• Involved in the Accessibility Forum and other
  initiatives.
• Building an informal network of people involved
  with 508
• Compare notes and make strategic decisions.
• Educating our members to their rights and that
  should produce more expectations and demand.
• Expressing concerns about specific sites to web
  masters and agencies.
• Draw more attention to compliance.

56
Comments fromJoy Relton AFB
57
Review of Government Agency Surveys and
Interviews

• Terry Weaver
• Joy Gatewood-Fulton

58
The Accessibility Forum Interviews

• Interviews with Federal Agencies regarding the
  Procurement Challenges of Section 508 acquiring
  accessible Electronic and Information Technology.

59
Section 508 - Interviews with Government
Procurement (1 of 2)

• Nine agencies interviewed from Depts. of HHS,
  Commerce, Treasury, and Defense.
• Purpose to gather best practices in procuring
  accessible EIT and to determine if agencies need
  further guidance in implementing Section 508.

60
Section 508 - Interviews with Government
Procurement (2 of 2)

• Interviews were Confidential, with data presented
  in an aggregate form only.
• Range
• Section 508 applicability to a purchase
• VPATs
• What 508 information do they require from vendors
• Comments
• Other

61
Implementing Section 508 - Question One

• How do you determine whether or not Section 508
  applies to a particular procurement?
• 44 Section 508 applies to all EIT procurements
• 56 We have tools and policies to advise of
  appropriate determinations and when it is not
  applicable

62
Implementing Section 508 - Question Two

• How do you document the results of your
  determination (whether or not Section 508 was
  applicable)?
• 22 - No formal documentation process
• 33 - An in-house tool leads users to the
  appropriate form or checklist that is used to
  document the determination and decision,
  including any exemption
• 56 - Other
• Other includes Reports, Templates, Procurement
  Requests, VPATs ,or other vendor supplied
  information

63
Implementing Section 508 - Question Three

• How do you determine which parts of the 508
  standard apply to a purchase?
• 44 - The requiring official determines which
  applies
• 56 - Other
• Guidance from the organization's Section 508
  committee
• Often it's a matter of interpretation and is
  ultimately the Contracting Officer's call
• The standard is applied equally across the board
• The in-house tool guides the user. Weighted
  standards are even possible (one provision can be
  more heavily weighted than another can)
• We rely on the vendor to provide us that
  information

64
Implementing Section 508 - Question Four

• What process or procedure do you follow to
  determine whether or not vendor products,
  deliverables, and services meet the requirements
  of Section 508?
• 33 - Vendors are required to self certify that
  products meet Section 508
• 22 - Market research which may include VPAT's
• 44 - A combination of both

65
Implementing Section 508 - Question Five

• What Information do you require of Offerors /
  Vendors?
• 33 - Self-Certification Language
• 33 - VPAT/template
• 22 - Vendor must complete our template
• 11 - Vendor must offer information about how
  their products meet Section 508 standards
  somewhere on their website, in brochures or
  handouts, in a standard template or VPAT format

66
Implementing Section 508 - Question Six

• How often do you use the Voluntary Product
  Accessibility Template (VPAT) in your assessment
  of a vendors products, deliverables, and
  services?
• 44 - Never
• 22 - Always
• 33 - Sometimes, when available

67
Implementing Section 508 - Question Six-A

• Is the VPAT the primary source of information?
• 44 - N/A - never use
• 44 - Yes
• 11 - No

68
Implementing Section 508 - Question Seven

• What other sources of information do you use?
• 44 - Market research
• 33 - N/A
• 11 - We also may test the product
• 11 - Our own template

69
Implementing Section 508 - Question Eight

• If the VPAT is used, we would like to follow up
  with some questions on how well it is working for
  you.
• What do you like about it?
• 44 - N/A
• 33 - Everything - easy to read and all the
  information is on one page
• 22 - Nothing

70
Implementing Section 508 - Question Nine (1 of 2)

• What do you dislike about it? (VPAT)
• 44 - N/A
• 22 - Nothing
• 56 - Other

71
Implementing Section 508 - Question Nine (2 of 2)

• Comments included
• Too complex
• Ambiguous
• Vendor simply states "meets" to every criteria -
  we ask the vendor to customize a VPAT that states
  how their product or service meets the criteria
• Language is too technical for most requiring
  officials
• People get confused and don't know what parts
  apply
• Vendors often complete the VPATs incorrectly

72
Implementing Section 508 - Question Ten

• The next few questions deal with your opinion of
  the quality of information provided by the VPAT.
• Have you had to go back to the vendor with
  questions about the information provided?
• 33 - Yes
• 22 - No
• 44 - N/A

73
Implementing Section 508 - Question Eleven

• How many times? (Did you have to go back to the
  vendor regarding the VPAT)
• 11 - Dont Know
• 22 - Many
• 67 - N/A

74
Implementing Section 508 - Question Twelve

• The next few questions deal with your opinion of
  the quality of information provided by the VPAT.
• How difficult was the VPAT to use? (On a scale 1
  to 5 where 1 is not difficult at all and 5 is
  extremely difficult)
• 33 - Not Difficult
• 11 - Difficult
• 56 - N/A

75
Implementing Section 508 - Question Thirteen

• The next few questions deal with your opinion of
  the quality of information provided by the VPAT.
• Did the VPAT save you time?
• 33 - Yes
• 11 - Not
• 56 - N/A

76
Implementing Section 508 - Question Fourteen

• How much confidence do you have in the accuracy
  of the information provided by the VPAT? (On a
  scale of 1 to 5 where 1 is little or no
  confidence and 5 is full confidence)
• 56 - N/A
• 22 - Full Confidence
• 11 - Fairly Confident
• 11 - No opinion

77
Implementing Section 508 - Question Fifteen

• Do you perform any technical evaluations of the
  products, deliverables, and services themselves
  to determine 508 compliance?
• 56 - No
• 44 - Yes

78
Implementing Section 508 - Question Sixteen

• After a product is delivered, are its 508
  compliance claims verified?
• 78 - No
• 11 - Yes
• 11 - Dont Know

79
Implementing Section 508 - Question Seventeen

• Does your agency conduct 508 training?
• 100 - Yes

80
Implementing Section 508 - Question Eighteen

• To who is the training provided (who is the
  principal audience)?
• 56 - All employees
• 11 - Contract Force
• 11 - Program Officers
• 11 - ROs, COs, COTRs, Legal Staff
• 11 - ROs, COs, COTRs

81
Implementing Section 508 - Question Nineteen (1
of 2)

• Do you think there is any area where additional
  training is required?
• 44 - No
• 56 - Yes
• Comments
• Yes, eventually we would like to spread out to
  the program offices.
• Yes, more should be done for general employees
  since anyone can be an RO at any time. May
  explore doing this as part of the new employee
  orientation.

82
Implementing Section 508 - Question Nineteen (2
of 2)

• More Comments
• Make this training ongoing and part of a regular
  awareness programs.
• Many ROs need training tailored to the products
  they are responsible to buy for the agency. The
  current training tends to handle the subject too
  broadly without enough hands-on examples. Small
  and disadvantaged businesses as well as value
  added and reseller vendors dont understand 508.
• Future surveys will help us determine this.

83
Implementing Section 508 - Question Twenty

• What could raise your level of confidence in what
  youre buying meets 508 requirements?
• Another way to ask this question might be What
  information or other resources are lacking or
  would be helpful to you in determining whether or
  not an offeror can meet the requirements of
  Section 508?
• 44 - Some sort of logo, icon or other labeling
  program to confirm that the product is compliant
  would help. Like the UL laboratories icon on
  electrical products. If the products were
  certified as Section 508 compliant by an
  impartial 3rd party testing lab.

84
Implementing Section 508 - Question Twenty-one

• Do you have any examples of particularly good
  vendor responses regarding 508 requirements?
• (Could you provide us with a copy of anything
  that have been or can be sanitized and would
  represent good examples)?
• 33 - No
• 22 - Dell
• 11 - We have an database of customized VPATs,
  but they were proprietary to each purchase
• 11 - Oracle
• 11 - Acrobat and Dell have good VPATs
• 11 - Ricoh, Canon, and Sharp

85
Implementing Section 508 - Question Twenty-two

• Have you made any purchases where the award
  decision has hinged on 508 requirements?
• If yes, what kinds of products and services were
  purchased?
• 78 - No
• 22 - Dont Know
• 11 - YesWe recently needed to buy thousands of
  printers and one vendor said that they could not
  provide printers that were compliant. We
  approached another vendor who provided printers
  that are compliant. We have had similar
  experiences with copying machines.

86
Implementing Section 508 - Question Twenty-three

• What is your biggest challenge in doing a 508
  compliant purchase? (What would make your job
  easier in dealing with Section 508)?
• 22 - Lack of dedicated resources (money and
  staff) to do justice to the 508 requirements
• 22 - Simply having a bigger pool of 508
  compliant products
• 22 - What would be really helpful would be a
  seal of approval from an agency or independent
  body as to how well a product or service met
  Section 508 requirements. The example of the
  Green Star Energy logo used by EPA comes to mind.

87
Agencies Best Practices Pages (1 of 2)

• DOE
• http//www.eren.doe.gov/websitestandards/508.html
  B
• NOAA
• http//www.nws.noaa.gov/sec508/
• ARNET/FAR
• http//www.arnet.gov/far/far_faqframe.html

88
Agencies Best Practices Pages (2 of 2)

• GSA - the definitive guide and buy accessible
  portal
• http//www.section508.gov
• Usability.govThe recent recipient of a Hammer
  award
• http//www.usability.gov

89
The Accessibility Forum Interviews

• Interviews with Federal Agencies regarding the
  Procurement Challenges of Section 508 acquiring
  accessible Electronic and Information Technology
• Interviews conducted over August - September 2002
• Interviews conducted by Forum staff and GSA Staff

90
Creative Technological Compliance With Section
508 Across Various Agencies

• Dave Gardy

91
The Able TV Channelon the TVWorldwide.com Network

• Developed proprietary Webcaptingsm process in
  2000
• Aimcasts to demographic attracts NCR, Microsoft
  and Sun Microsystems and 2000 Democratic
  Convention
• Largest Internet archive of streaming video on
  disability and captioned video streaming
• Pioneering solutions provider for Section 508
  streaming media challenges

92
The Able TV Channelon the TVWorldwide.com Network

• Tapped years of streaming video and production
  expertise to perfect applications for captioning
  of archived video using MAGPIE in concert
  withproprietary compression techniques
• Deployed this technology in Internet TV
  programming targeted to the community of those
  with disabilities yielding valuable feedback

93
The Able TV Channelon the TVWorldwide.com Network

• Took lessons learned from feedback on archived
  captioned video and researched solutions for
  captioning challenges in live webcasting
  applications such as latency and synchronization
• Developed WEBCAPTINGsmLive captioned video
  streaming by optimizing encoder of stenographer
  to work with webcast encoder with captioning
  resident to actual video stream

94
Able TV Adds Audio Description and Text Search
for Complete Solution

• During video compression process, Able TV and
  TVWorldwide.com technicians add narrated
  description to audio track.This can also be done
  in live webcast production with narrator on site,
  miked into audio mixer.
• Text search allows captioning to be searched for
  specific word and moves to that point in the
  video presentation, advancing the slide if present

95
Able TV adds TVWorldwide.comGlobalshowsm
Format Interactive Video/Powerpoint

• In addition to captioning and audio description,
  viewer can now access power point slides of video
  presentation in separate HTML window as speaker
  gives presentation on video.
• Participant can ask questions via chat and
  e-mail
• Interactive testing and instant accreditation
• Globeshow can be done live or archived.

96
TVWorldwide.com and Accessibility

• TVWorldwide.com utilizes accessibility features
  to bring Section 508 solutions to government
  agency applications for Internet TV audience of
  those with disabilities and others in live and
  archived form. Here are some examples shown from
  a CD-ROM.
• GSA Accessibility Forum
• FDA Webcast on Electronic Submissions
• SBA Alpha Entrepreneur Program
• Dept. of Veterans Affairs VA Reports

97
Other TVWorldwide.com Projects for Government
Agencies

• NIST Conference on IT Accessibility
• ITTATC Section 508 webcast series
• U.S. Chemical Safety Board
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
• IDEAS conference/ Department of Agriculture

98
New Business

• Mary Beth Janes
• SMC Chair

99
New Business

• Next Forum meeting
• Status of SMC Nominating Committee

100
Closing remarks

• Thank you!

101
The Accessibility Forum thanksED RENIKER for
his service, dedication, and commitment!