Project Consolidation and Voting

1
Project Consolidation and Voting

• Paul Mitten
• Compusult, Ltd.
• Assistive Technology Industry Association

2
Project Identification History

• May Forum Meeting Breakout Sessions
• 60 project ideas generated by 4 breakout sessions
• Project Identification Team formed
• Original document distributed to team May 16
• Single list of all project ideas
• Original document redistributed with unique
  identification numbers May 20
• Provides an audit trail for initial ideas

3
Project Consolidation Team

• Marci Keiser PSINet
• Bill LaPlant Census
• Sharon Laskowski NIST
• Rex Lint ITAA
• Paul Mitten ATIA
• Ken Otten ADACompliance
• June Perritt IBM
• Jill Thomas Ion Systems

• Jim Tobias Inclusive Technologies
• Janina Sajka AFB
• Mark Urban NCITSv2
• Michael Takemura Compaq Computer
• Gregg Vanderhieden TRACE Center
• Accessibility Forum Staff
• Bill Hetzner,Jim Kindrick, Phil Rosche

4
Project Consolidation History

• Initial categorization/groupings May 25
• Identified 4 broad categories of projects
• Consolidation of items suggested during Project
  Team conference calls June 1 - 11
• Reduction of 60 ideas to 13 project topics
• Editorial work and final ballot produced based on
  Project Team e-mail discussion June 15
• Ballot distributed to General Forum Membership in
  July

5
Project Ballot 13 Candidates in 4 Categories

• Survey of Existing Knowledge, Strategies, and
  Commercial Product Features
• 7 candidate projects
• Interoperability/Compatibility of AT and
  Commercial EIT Products
• 1 major project
• Tools and Measures
• 3 candidate project
• Providing Information to/from the Access Board
  and/or GSA
• 2 candidate projects

6
Who Voted?

• Vendors
• EIT Vendors 34 responses, 51 overall
• AT Vendors 7 responses, 11 overall
• Users
• 9 responses, 14 overall
• Academic, Research, and Standards
• 11 responses, 16 overall
• Government
• 5 responses, 8 overall

7
7
8
Forum Stakeholders

• EIT Vendors
• Hardware manufacturers, software developers,
  system integrators, web services, IT consulting,
  and providers of other IT support devices.
• AT Vendors
• Vendors and integrators of Assistive Technology
  (AT) including any equipment commonly used to
  enhance functional capabilities of individuals
  with disabilities.

9
Forum Stakeholders

• Users
• End users and their advocacy groups are members
  and/or representatives of the community of people
  with disabilities.
• Academic, Research, and Standards
• Academic and other Researchers specializing in
  accessibility, and representatives of Standards
  making bodies related to EIT accessibility and/or
  AT interoperability.
• Government
• Representatives of Federal Government agencies.

10
Big Winners

• 2 projects were clear favorites
• Project 8 Enhance AT/EIT Interoperability
• Project 11 Enhance the Availability of Objective
  Measures
• Received votes from every stakeholder group
• Fundamental, unifying, and mission critical

11
Runners Up

• 5 additional projects were favorably rated in
  this order
• Project 3 Inventory AT
• Project 10 Inventory Assessment Tools
• Project 4 Inventory User Requirements
• Project 7 Index of Technical Resources
• Project 6 Standard Terminology Glossary
• 4 of these 5 received votes from every
  stakeholder group
• Potential building blocks for the Big Winners

12
Also Ran

• 6 Projects received less interest.
• In order of priority, these are
• Project 13 GSA/Access Board Communication
  Channels
• Project 1 Inventory Accessibility Features
• Project 5 Identify Important Consumer Product
  Features
• Project 9 Vendor 508 Template Review
• Project 2 Inventory Consumer Report Information
• Project 12 Clarification from GSA/Access Board

13
Project Relationships

• Apparent relationships exist between individual
  projects
• Feedback from Forum membership
• Big Winners appear to have some interdependency
  with the Runners Up

14
Where do I go from here?

• Discuss the projects and their interrelationships
  with your peers in the Break out sessions later
  today
• Understand the benefits
• What are the results of these projects?
• How dos GSA use them to make more informed
  decisions about procurement?