Telecommunications and Electronic and Information Technology Advisory Committee (TEITAC)
Meeting Summary (Approved)

September 27-29, 2006
Meeting Number 1
National Science Foundation
Arlington, VA

September 27th (1:00 – 5:00)

Welcoming Remarks: 
David Bibb, Chair of the Access Board, and Lawrence Roffee, Executive Director of the Access Board, welcomed committee members, thanked them for their willingness to serve on the committee, and underscored the importance of accessible telecommunications and electronic and information technology to all people with disabilities.

Introduction of Members: 
Committee members introduced themselves, described organizations they represent, and noted reasons for their interest in the advisory committee.

Committee members made the following comments about what they hoped to achieve as a result of the refresh process:

• The need for a sustainable, refreshable process for the standards and guidelines.
• The need for technical standards that result in accessible technology for people with disabilities across the board.
• The need for standards that will apply to new technology.
• The need for clarification of which sections of the standards and guidelines apply to which types of technology.
• The need for greater harmonization of U.S. standards for web accessibility with international standards, to facilitate and improve support in web-related software, while ensuring more effective accessibility for people with disabilities.
• The need for greater accountability by the industry.
• The need for standards that are easy to understand.
• The need for a standard that is technically feasible, and does not hinder innovation.
• The need for standards around convergence and multiple functions and various devices, so people with disabilities are able to have access and make use of all these wonderful new technologies that are out there.
• The need to make sure that IT and AT are interoperable.
• The desire for a standard methodology for testing accessibility and comparing it across several products.
• The need for objective, testable standards.
• The need to have the profit motive for industry when designing and manufacturing accessible products.
• The importance of committee members representing different stakeholder groups to listen to each other and find out what is most important to people with disabilities and what is most important to industry and try to come to comprehensive solutions on these problems.
• The importance of measurable and testable standards in the functional performance area.
• The need for clear commercially implementable standards that are harmonized with Europe and Japan, and get back to technology that we can sell around the world that meet the needs of people with disabilities and people who are aging.
• The need for testable standards that apply to today’s technology but do not limit future innovation.
• The need for usability.
• The need to build on what we’ve learned in the 255 environment.

Overview of Committee Purpose and Rulemaking Process;
Overview of the Rehabilitation Act and the Telecommunications Act;
Board Briefing on Section 255 of the Telecommunications Act and Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act: 
David Capozzi provided a briefing on the Access Board, including its mission, services, program goals, and the advisory committee process as it assists in the work of developing guidelines and standards for electronic and information technology and telecommunications.  Timothy Creagan reviewed the standards and guidelines of the Rehabilitation Act and the Telecommunications Act.

Briefing on the Federal Advisory Committee Act;
Questions & Answers on Federal Advisory Committee Act: 
Lisa Fairhall, Deputy General Counsel, Access Board, and Robert Flaak, Director, Committee Management Secretariat, General Services Administration, provided an overview of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and its provisions governing the structure and operation of advisory committees chartered by Federal agencies.  These include stipulations on:  committee tenure (two years with extensions possible), committee meetings (must be open to the public, notice must be provided at least 15 days in advance, minutes or summaries required), and the option to form subcommittees which can broaden participation beyond committee membership.  It was noted that a video on the Act was posted on the Access Board website before the meeting for Committee members to view at their leisure.

Review and Approval of Protocols for governance of the Advisory Committee: 
Timothy Creagan and Committee co-chairs Jim Tobias and Michael Paciello reviewed and discussed the draft protocols.  After extensive discussion, Committee members offered some minor changes to the draft protocols and adopted them with changes.  Several limited revisions were approved (replacing the term “caucuses” with “Ad hoc,” adding language that “Subcommittees shall publish their meeting schedules and other work mechanisms in advance to the public” and leaving open the date that the final committee report will be presented to the Access Board).  The Board will provide a revised version of the protocols on the Access Board website.

Public Comment. 
Members of the public in attendance made comments that:

• Discussed the issue of verifiable testing for the requirements, particularly those associated with the functional performance criteria.  Georgia Institute of Technology offered to provide guidance on this issue.
• Discussed that there are no technical standards that address cognitive disabilities.  The suggestion was made that some standards and guidelines which address usability may also address cognitive disabilities.  The committee is urged to consider guidelines that ease the usability of information technology for people with disabilities may also translate into better usability for everyone.
• The committee is urged to consider the learning that has gone from the implementation of Section 508 in the past five years and that information should be captured in some sort of document and used as a tool to help the committee do its work, with an opportunity for public comment.
• Discussed the need for the committee to develop functional performance standards for school technology.
• Discussed the need to look at exemptions from compliance with the requirements under section 508, such as “undue burden” and the national security exceptions.
• There was a question raised as to the procedures to be used when considering additional members.  The process was reviewed by Access Board staff.

A reception was held after the meeting.  A group photograph was taken of the committee members.

September 28th (9:00 – 5:00)

Panel on What’s Working, What’s Not Working, What’s New? 
(Government, Consumer, and Industry – Panel Discussion)

Committee members representing various stakeholder groups (industry, federal government and consumers) spoke to various concerns that they have with the state of the standards and guidelines today and how they operate in today’s business, government and consumer environments. Comments addressed the following: 

• The need for business to look at cost-benefit analysis when designing and developing technology for people with disabilities.
• The implementation of the design standards for telecommunications have been successfully implemented, thanks to the close work of consumers and industry.
• Assistive technology is an important part of the process and must be considered when designing products.
• Government acquisition incorporates the standards and guidelines as part of a number of requirements in the procurement process.
• The current standards have had successes, but some of the more subjective provisions are problematic in their interpretation and implementation; development tools currently have no standards.
• Internal practices within different federal agencies have focused on best practices; must focus on AT needs; competition is good, it promotes solutions.
• Some agencies have internally published procedures for implementing the standards and guidelines which are defensible, testable, and repeatable.
• Market driven development is not sufficient; an “accessibility impact statement” is needed, showing the steps taken to achieve accessibility in a product, the steps taken to coordinate the procurement with the needs of people with disabilities, and explaining unsuccessful procurements.  Harmonization and interoperability are important.
• These standards and guidelines have a global impact; customer service centers selling these products and services need constant training for staff.
• Despite efforts, some products are still not accessible (IVR, new cordless phones changing from analog systems to digital are incompatible with hearing aids).  Much work still to be done.

Panel on What has the Access Board Heard Through Technical Assistance, Training, and Outreach? 
Timothy Creagan, Access Board;
David Baquis, Access Board.
Presentations are posted on the Access Board website at: 
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/teitac1st/Advisory_Committee_issues_-_Sept_2006_-_VERSION_5.ppt
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/teitac1st/Access_Board_Outreach-09_27_06-Creagan.ppt

Panel on Other Accessibility Initiatives: 
JTC1 Special Working Group on Accessibility;
Status of WCAG 2.0 and 1.0;
ANSI Human Factors Ergonomics Society 200.
Presentations are posted on the Access Board website at: 
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/teitac1st/SWG-A/SWG-A_0906_TEITAC_kick-off.ppt
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/teitac1st/W3C-WAI-20060928/
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/teitac1st/Section_508_Presn_9-19-06_v6.ppt

Lunch (Provided for Committee Members)

Accommodation and Accessibility (Demonstration),
Bruce Bailey, Accessibility Specialist, Access Board.
Presentation is posted on the Access Board website at: 
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/teitac1st/Sec504vs508/teitac-bbailey-29sept2006.ppt

Panel on Updates on International Standards Work
(European Union, Japan, Canada, Australia – Panel Discussion).
Presentations are posted on the Access Board website at: 
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/teitac1st/ImaTeitaceAccessibility2006.ppt
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/teitac1st/Yamada060928.ppt
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/teitac1st/IC_TEITAC_2006.ppt

General Discussion:  Committee Tasks, Discussion and Decisions on Additional Committee Applicants.
The following entities applied for membership on the TEITAC:

• Massachusetts Information Technology Division
• Free Standards Group
• Bridge Multimedia
• Office of Personnel Management
• AOL LLC
• Bay First
• North Carolina Governor’s Council on People with Disabilities
• Deque Systems
• Internal Revenue Service
• Federal Reserve Board (Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

After oral presentations by each of the applicants, and questioning by the members of the committee, the members of the committee voted to admit only one applicant, AOL LLC.  AOL LLC was seated immediately and joined the committee in further business.

Public Comment Period:
A public comment period was held.  Members of the public who represented entities that had applied for membership on the committee but were not admitted thanked the committee for their consideration, and pledged to support the work of the committee through participation in the subcommittee process.

September 29th, 2006 (9:00 – 3:30)

Review of Agenda: 
A review of the day’s agenda was conducted by the committee co-chairs.

Dates for future meetings: 
It was decided to address the issue of future meeting dates, since it was felt that those could be resolved quickly.  After reviewing draft dates provided by the Access Board staff, the committee decided upon the following dates for future meetings of the committee:

• November 8-9, 2006;
• February 6-8, 2007;
• March 27-29, 2007;
• May 22-25, 2007;
• and July 25-27, 2007.

General Discussion – Committee Tasks, Milestones and Subcommittee Formation: 
The committee embarked on a lengthy discussion of committee tasks.  As a first order of business, the committee decided to form a Communications Task Force, which was charged with providing communication and administration tools for use by committee and subcommittee members.

Subcommittees:  Discussion continued throughout the day.
The committee discussed the organization and delineation of subcommittees and agreed to eight:

• General Interface
• Web, Software, and Content
• Telecommunications
• Audio Video
• Self Contained / Closed Products
• Desktops / Portable
• Subpart A
• Documentation and Technical Support

It was agreed that committee members would temporarily serve as “conveners” of the subcommittees and that the subcommittees would work on their governance structures and begin discussion of potential issues before the next meeting.

Lunch (Provided for Committee Members)

General Discussion – Committee Assignments and Next Steps

In addition to discussion and the decision to form subcommittees, the committee discussed the concept of “themes” which would be issues or concerns that should be considered by each subcommittee.  It was agreed that the committee would devote more time to a discussion and exploration of the themes in an effort to further refine them and determine how they would inform the work of the subcommittees.

The following themes were listed:

• Cognitive Disability
• Emerging Products and Components
• External Standards by Reference
• Harmonization
• Maintaining and Updating the Standards
• Testability
• Economic Impact
• Interoperability with AT
• Usability of the Standards

The members of the Communications Task Force agreed to report to the committee by email after the meeting on the asynchronous tools that would be available for committee work.  The members of the committee agreed to keep in touch via the asynchronous tools that would be provided.  It was hoped and expected that the subcommittees would be able to begin discussion and organization soon after the first face to face meeting of the TEITAC.

The next face to face meeting will be November 8 & 9, 2006, at a location to be determined.

A public comment period was held, with comments made on the progress of the committee and expressions of interest in the work of the subcommittees.

The meeting was adjourned.