Review of Agenda
Co-Chair Opening Comments / Consensus Protocol Review
Michael Paciello and Jim Tobias, Co-Chairs, TEITAC, reviewed the agenda. The draft agenda submitted before the meeting was amended to reflect Committee priorities [See: http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/agenda_2007-11-13.htm]. There was a discussion about the expectations and protocol to be followed during this face to face meeting with regard to identifying committee members on the conference bridge who needed to be recognized, to speak to an issue.
Committee Discussion: Functional Performance Criteria / AT-IT Interoperability
A discussion was then held by the full committee to address the issues of Functional Performance Criteria (FPC) and AT-IT Interoperability. Co-chair Jim Tobias led off the comments with a brief statement addressing the issue of Functional Performance Criteria (FPC) and how they should be handled in the report. The current language of the law as it identifies FPC and design criteria as separate and distinct provisions was briefly reviewed. The issue of scoping is one that should be left to the Access Board.
After discussion, the committee came to consensus that:
The discussion about AT-IT Interoperability was led off by Randy Marsden, ATIA, and Michael Takemura, ITI with a list of discussion questions and issues around AT-IT from the General Subcommittee and AT-IT issues summarized. These questions and issues came from a teleconference of the Telecommunications subcommittee, held on October 15, 2007, and found here: http://teitac.org/wiki/Monday_10-15-2007_General_telecon#Notes_from_meeting. The notes from the AT-IT discussion are found here: http://teitac.org/wiki/AT-IT.
IT and AT Interoperability (presentation by Randy Marsden, Michael Takemura)
Topics in the presentation included: Market Trends / Business Opportunity; Why is interoperability important? On-going Collaboration Programs AT Vendor Programs, Today’s Announcement ATIA & ITI On-going Interactions.
There was a discussion of “sandbox” comments (as listed) for 1.1 Functional Performance Criteria [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Updates#1.1_Functional_Performance_Criteria] and a discussion of two versions from the caucus about the Role of Functional Performance Criteria [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_FPC_Role].
Concerns were identified with each of the two versions. No consensus was reached as to which version was preferred. The Committee agreed to continue discussing the issue.
After a break, discussion covered a number of topics for the remainder of the afternoon.
Discussion focused on the Functional Performance Criteria (FPC). There was a discussion as to whether the committee was moving towards suggested language for a definition of FPC or whether there was any movement towards a group understanding of how to interpret FPC and apply them.
It was noted that FPC are a key component of the telecommunications accessibility guidelines. This then led into a discussion of the different standards applied under Section 255 and 508 and how this would be addressed in the final report. There was also a discussion of a proposed purpose statement for part of the report, which would attempt to distinguish between Sections 255 and 508 in how the provisions would be applied. [See: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_SubA_Purpose.]
Public Comment Period
A public comment period was held. Peter Manyin of the Federal Reserve commented on the proposed language from the earlier discussion on FPC. [See link to two drafts: “http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_FPC_Role”.] Katie Horritos-Shea from FMS commented on the effect of Section 508 on design of products.
The meeting was then adjourned at 6:00 p.m.
Review of agenda
Michael Paciello and Jim Tobias, Co-Chairs, TEITAC, reviewed the agenda. Timothy Creagan, Access Board staff member, spoke about the projected report delivery date of January 9, 2008 and discussed the general expectations from the Access Board that a majority of the committee would be involved in the report to the Board.
The meeting resumed with a plenary discussion of the provisions in Section 4 of the draft report, 4. Additional Provisions for Audio-Visual Players or Displays. Links to topics discussed may be found at: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26#4._Additional_Provisions_for_Audio-Visual_Players_or_Displays
Discussion of Section 4-A. Caption Playback. [See: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Updates#4-A_-_Caption_Playback ] (from sandbox). Consensus was achieved on the revised wording. [See: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Caption_Playback.]
Discussion of 4-B Supplemental Audio Playback [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Updates#4-B_-_Supplemental_Audio_Playback (from Sandbox) and consensus was reached on revised wording. [See: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Supplemental_Audio_Playback.]
Discussion of 4-C Access to Caption Controls [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Updates#4-C_-_Access_to_Caption_Controls ] (from sandbox), and consensus was reached on revised wording. [See: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Access_to_Caption_Controls.]
Public Comment Period
A public comment period was held at the end of the morning’s discussion. Terry Weaver of GSA discussed captioning and the practice of not captioning raw footage.
The committee adjourned for lunch. After lunch, plenary discussion resumed on the provisions in Section 6 of the draft report, Audio and/or Video Content.
Links to topics discussed are given below:
Discussion of 6-A Captions and Transcripts [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Updates#6-A_-_Captions_and_Transcripts] (from sandbox) and consensus was achieved on the revised wording [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Captions_and_Transcripts].
Discussion of 6-B Video Description [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26#6-B_-_Video_Description] (from sandbox) and consensus was achieved on the revised wording [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Video_Description].
Discussion of 6-C Open or Closed Captions [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Updates#6-C_-_Open_or_Closed_Captions.2FDescriptions] (from sandbox) and consensus was reached on the revised wording [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Open_or_Closed_Captions].
Discussion of 6-D Interactive Elements [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26#6-D_-_Interactive_Elements] and discussion was held on proposed revised wording, but no consensus was reached on the exact wording [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Interactive_Elements].
The meeting resumed with a plenary discussion of the provisions in Section 1.2, “General Technical Requirements”.
Links to topics discussed are given below:
Discussion of 1.2-A Accessibility Configuration [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Updates#1.2-A_-_Accessibility_Configuration] (from sandbox) and discussion on revised wording [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Accessibility_Configuration], but no consensus was reached on the exact wording.
Discussion of 1.2-B Accessible Content [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26#1.2-B_-_Accessible_Content] and a discussion was held about proposed wording changes [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Accessible_Content], but no consensus was reached on the exact wording.
Discussion of 1.2-C Closed Functionality [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Updates#1.2-C_-_Closed_Functionality] and consensus was achieved on revised wording [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Closed_Functionality].
Discussion of 1.2-D Biometric ID [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Updates#1.2-D_-_Biometric_ID] (from sandbox) and tentative consensus was reached, subject to editorial review [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Biometric_ID].
Discussion of 1.2-E Pass Through [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Updates#1.2-E_-_Pass_Through (from sandbox) and discussion was held on proposed revisions [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Pass_Through], but no consensus was reached on the exact wording.
Public Comment
A public comment period was held, but no comments were offered. The meeting then adjourned for the day.
Review of agenda
Michael Paciello and Jim Tobias, Co-Chairs, TEITAC, reviewed the agenda. The time of today’s meeting was extended by one hour, to 6:00 p.m., at the request of the members of the Committee. [See: http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/agenda_2007-11-15.htm.]
It was noted that the committee will hold weekly Tuesday afternoon teleconference meetings for the next five weeks as previously noticed in the in the Federal Register. Teleconference calls are scheduled for November 20th and 27th, December 4, 11th and 18th 2007. All teleconferences will have specific agendas listing the provisions of the draft report to be discussed. [See: http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/fr-notice_2007-11-01.htm.]
Committee members then had a lengthy discussion about the differences in application between Section 255 and Section 508. It was noted that Section 255 focuses on direct accessibility of products, whereas Section 508 also allows compatibility with Assistive Technology. It was agreed that the Committee would work on general wording to address these concerns. Discussions on the differences in Section 508 and Section 255 were held throughout the course of the day.
The meeting then resumed with a continuation of the plenary discussion of the provisions in Section 1.2, “General Technical Requirements”.
Links to topics discussed are given below:
Discussion of 1.2-F Audio Information [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Updates#1.2-F_-_Audio_Information ] and 1.2-G Visual Information [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Updates#1.2-G_-_Visual_Information], (both from sandbox). A discussion was held on the comments that had been submitted for each section, but no consensus was reached on wording [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Audio_Information].
Discussion of 1.2-H Color [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26#1.2-H_-_Color]. Consensus was achieved on the wording [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Color_1].
Discussion of Text Size (from sandbox) and discussion on revised proposal wording, but no consensus was reached on the exact wording.
Public Comment
A public comment period was held, but no comments were offered. The meeting then adjourned for lunch.
The Committee then reviewed Section 5-B Real-Time Text Reliability and Interoperability.
Invited expert, Paul Jones with Cisco, contributed to the discussion.
There was extensive discussion of 5-B – Real-Time Text Reliability and Interoperability [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Updates#5-B_-_Real-Time_Text_Reliability_and_Interoperability] (from sandbox) and tentative consensus was reached on revised wording [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Real-Time_Text_Reliability_and_Interoperability].
The Committee then reviewed Section 5 Additional Provisions for Real-time Voice Conversation Functionality.
There was discussion of 5-D – IVR, Auto-Attendant and Messaging [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26#5-D_-_IVR.2C_Auto-Attendant_and_Messaging] (from sandbox) and consensus was reached on revised wording [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_IVR_Auto-Attendant_and_Messaging].
There was discussion of 5-F – Video Support [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Updates#5-F_-_Video_Support] (from sandbox) and consensus was reached on revised wording. [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Video_Support].
Public Comment
A public comment period was held, but no comments were offered. The meeting then returned to the discussion.
Differences between Sections 508 and 255.
A continuing discussion on the differences in application between Sections 225 and 508 resumed. It was agreed to continue the discussion on Friday, in the interest of time. The discussion then resumed on the outstanding provisions.
There was discussion of 5-A Relay Services Accessibility [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Updates#5-A_-_Relay_Services_Accessibility ] (from sandbox) and consensus was reached on amended wording [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Relay_Services_Accessibility]. Further, the Committee agreed to move the location of the provision to the agency requirements section (consistent with other editorial decisions).
After this topic was concluded, the meeting adjourned for the day at 6:00 p.m.
Review and update of agenda.
Michael Paciello/, Jim Tobias, Co-Chairs, TEITAC, reviewed the agenda. [See: http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/agenda_2007-11-16.htm.]
It was noted that the plenary meeting time would end at 2:00 P.M. on Friday, November 16th, since many committee members were leaving at that time. A quorum would not be present to conduct business past 2:00 p.m. It was agreed that those Committee members who could stay past 2:00 p.m. would continue discussions in an attempt to clarify outstanding issues and concerns which would then be addressed by the full Committee at the next plenary session where a quorum of members were present.
Approval of minutes.
The draft meeting minutes from September and October 2007 TEITAC plenary meetings were reviewed and approved. [See: September 2007 minutes at http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/minutes-sept07.htm] and [see: October 2007 minutes at http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/refresh/minutes-oct07.htm].
Discussion of Economic Impact Analysis requirements.
Responding to questions from the Committee, Lisa Fairhall, Access Board staff member, reviewed the information required for an agency to conduct an Economic Impact Analysis as part of a rulemaking. She encouraged the members of the Committee to submit any materials or information they might have on any costs associated with the proposed recommendations to the Access Board. She stressed that any information submitted by members of TEITAC did not need to be part of any consensus process, since it is considered supplemental or background material useful to the agency in preparing the Economic Impact Analysis, and not part of the Committee report.
A discussion about the schedule of weekly TEITAC plenary teleconference meetings scheduled for November 20th through December 18, 2007 was held. The Committee members elected to cancel the teleconference scheduled for November 2, 2007. All information about the meetings, such as contact numbers, captioning information and agendas would be posted on the Access Board webpage for TEITAC.
In other housekeeping matters, it was agreed that all subcommittee listservs would be deactivated after general notice was provided to the public. All discussion would henceforth occur on the Committee listserv only.
The Committee then reviewed Section 5.C: Voice Terminal Hardware and Software (Section 5-C)
There was a discussion of the provision itself [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26#5-C_-_Voice_Terminal_Hardware_and_Software] and of comments made in the sandbox. [See: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Updates#5-C_-_Voice_Terminal_Hardware_and_Software.] After discussion, tentative consensus was achieved for revised wording. [See: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Voice_Terminal_Hardware_and_Software.]
The Committee members agreed to investigate the availability of Bluetooth RJ11 adapters and there compatibility with Baudot signals, and native Bluetooth capability for new model TTYs.
The discussion on FPC and differences between Sections 255 and 508 and how these should be addressed in the report were continued from previous days in the meeting.
During the discussion, the language from 1.1-B - With Limited Vision
[See: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_With_Limited_Vision] Was used as an example for consideration of how the differing standards could be addressed in the final report.
The Committee agreed that bifurcation in the final report could be an acceptable way of addressing the differences in application of Sections 255 and 508.
Discussion was held on possible methods of addressing the issue. There could be one report document, with two separate sections: one for provisions applying only to Section 508 and one for provisions applying only to Section 255.
Further details proposed including using the term “covered” to mean provisions covered by telecommunications standards and the term “all” to mean those provisions covered by Section 508. Functional Performance Criteria would end up being in both sections, but each part of the proposed bifurcated report would have different Purpose and Explanation sections. Technical requirements would be the same in each part. It was agreed to review these ideas in the upcoming teleconference calls.
It was also agreed that a separate telecommunications Task Force be formed to determine which provisions should be in the Section applying only to Section 255. The Task Force would look at those provisions that might require modification, and would propose language to the full committee to address those concerns.
Current sections in the draft report which were used as examples of provisions covered by Section 255, included Section 3-G Human Language [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Human_Language] and 3-H Language of Parts [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26#3-H_-_Language_of_Parts and comments at: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26_Language_of_Parts] and Section 3-A Color [see: http://teitac.org/wiki/EWG:Draft_Oct_26#3-A_-_Color].
Closing Comments
All committee members were asked to submit materials for assessing economic impact. The General subcommittee chairs were to lead the continuing work on resolving the outstanding issues for the General Technical Requirements.
Public Comment
A Public Comment was held. Access Board Public Member Jim Elekes thanked the Committee for their work to date, and acknowledged the large amount of work remaining to be done. He suggested that if the Committee cannot realistically complete their work by January 2008, they could continue working and submit their report to the Access Board at the March 2008 meeting.
The eighth meeting of the TEITAC was then adjourned until the November 27, 2007 Teleconference.
Documents referenced at this meeting:
The TEITAC referenced three documents during the course of this meeting.
They are: