National Committee for Information Technology Standards
NCITS
Secretariat, Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)
1250 Eye St. NW,
Suite 200, Washington, DC 20005
Telephone 202-737-8888; Fax 202-638-4922;
Email: ncits@itic.org
Doc: V2/00-0005
Date: October 11-13, 2000
Project: N/A
Ref. Doc: V2/00-0003.
Reply to: Bill LaPlant, V2 convener
email:
bill.LaPlant@census.gov
DRAFT MINUTES
NCITS V2 PLENARY MEETING #1
Meeting Dates: October 11-13, 2000, 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM
Meeting Location:
Information Technology Industry Council (ITI)
1250
Eye Street NW Suite 200
Washington, DC 20005
Conference Rooms 1 and 2
Note: All of the documents referenced here, along with all other V2
documents, are posted on the V2 Web Site:
(Ref: http://www.ncits.org/tc_home/v2.htm,
"V2 -Information Technology Access Interfaces")
1. Call to Order - LaPlant
the meeting was called to order by
LaPlant, V2 Convener, at 9:10 AM , on October 11, 2000. LaPlant welcomed
everyone to the inaugural plenary session of V2.
2. Introduction of attendees
2.1 Members attending
(Ref: V2/00-SD-1,
"Member list for V2")
Mike Burks, AT&T
Kelsey Rideout, BAE SYSTEMS
Rex Lint, COMPAQ
Sharon Laskowski, Dept. of Commerce/NIST
Bill LaPlant, Dept. of
Commerce/Census - Convener
Charles Sheppard, Dept. of Commerce/NIST
Wayne McCoy EDAPTA
Karl Hebenstreit, GSA
Susan Turnbull, GSA
Marc Abrams, HARMONIA
Shari Trewin, IBM
Nasser Ghazi, MICROSOFT
Margot Peet, MITRE
Earl Meiers, MITRE and IEEE/ STD 2001
James
Moore, MITRE
Joe Roeder, NIB
Connie Myers, ORACLE
Mark Urban, PSINET
Cynthia Waddell PSINET
John Chapman, SHARE
Gregg Vanderheiden, TRACE
Gottfried Zimmermann, TRACE
Al Gilman, TRACE
Jean Baronas, XEROX
Lisa Sabol, XEROX
2.2 Other Attendees
Kate McMillan, NCITS Secretariat
Carolyn
Kinney, visitor
3. Approval of the Agenda
(Ref: V2/00-0004,
"Agenda for meeting #1 of V2, 10/11-13/00")
The posted draft agenda was approved and later amended to include a technical
presentation on UIML.
4. Review of the Approved Project Proposal
(Ref: V2/00-0003,
"Project Proposal (Project "1464-D)")
Note: the project has the NCITS
project number "1464-D".
LaPlant noted that the proposal document is the current scope of V2. He recommended not asking for new projects at this time. He noted that there was one negative vote by NCITS for the V2 project proposal.
ACTION ITEM: LaPlant will provide a pointer to the voting record of NCITS on the V2 project proposal.
Vanderheiden said that to avoid confusion the preamble to the appendix should be revise to remove. LaPlant said that he and Roeder will make this clearer.
ACTION ITEM: LaPlant and Roeder will make project scope document clearer.
5. NCITS Overview and Introduction
McMillan provided an overview of NCITS policies, procedures, and operations necessary for the successful functioning of V2.
Vanderheiden asked about making a change to the name of V2, such as drropping the "IT" from the title. McMillan said this is possible with NCITS authorization.
The Technical Committee can call NCITS (202-737-8888) for help with rules during meetings. NCITS conducts new member trainings and holds chairmen training conferences. All committee members are welcome.
NCITS encourages full disclosure of patents and other intellectual property related to the standards being developed by the committee.
NCITS rules and procedures can be found in the standing documents on the
NCITS web site.
(Ref: http://www.ncits.org/std_docs.html,
"NCITS Standing Documents")
6. Contextual Remarks
Vanderheiden gave an overview of various past efforts to develop interfaces to accommodate people with disabilities (PWD). Early efforts included having a separate computer for input. Neil Scott developed a concept of a universal accessor and has recently received patent 06083270. (Ref: http://archimedes.stanford.edu//projects97.html, "Archimedes Projects")
Vanderheiden spoke of the URCC, "Universal Remote Controls, Remote Consoles,
and Other Interconnectivity" research at Trace
(Ref: http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/universal_remotes_and_interconnectivity/linkpage.htm,
"Universal Remote Controls, Remote Consoles, and Other Interconnectivity Links
Page")
Trace abandoned URCC efforts in favor of V2.
V2 is focusing on what devices say to each other after a connection is made. the proposed communications protocol is AIAP (Alternative Interface Access Protocol).
McCoy disclosed that edapta has patents on a form of implementation of the projected AIAP protocol, but not on the AIAP protocol itself.
Vanderheiden noted that a remote console (as opposed to a remote control) provides both input and output. The basis is a universal text based communications.
AIAP may have multiple levels of standard and V2 must decide how to organize them. A prime objective is enabling PWD to approach and use devices. In addition, Non-PWD can use AIAP to communicate preferences or appliance needs.
Vanderheiden then discussed the regulatory context for V2. He spoke about the FCC telecommunications regulations ('section 255'), and the legislative amendment to the Rehabilitation Act, ('section 508'). Section 508 is producing standards for acces by PWD to electronic and information technology products. These standards, which are to be published soon and take effect 6 months later, will require the federal government to purchase only products that are accessible.
Vanderheiden spoke about the need for AIAP. He noted that access technology may one day be on the web and devices may have to work with artificial intelligent agents, which cannot hear or see.
There was some concern expressed about the lack of access technology industry
representation on V2.
7. Status of Preliminary Work on the Alternative Interface Access Protocol
7.1 Architecture
McCoy described the work done by V2's predecessor (the IT Accommodations Study Group) on an Alternative Interface Access Protocol (AIAP- pronounced 'Ape'). Materials on AIAP can be found on the collaborative site www.uniac.com.
7.1.1 Potpourri
(Ref: http://www.uniac.com/Reqts.html,
"Universal Accessibility Protocol Requirements Document")
7.1.2 Terms of Reference
(Ref: http://www.uniac.com/TermsReference.html,
"Terms of Reference")
7.1.3 Background and Constraints
(Ref: http://www.uniac.com/BG-Constraints.html,
"PROBLEM AND CONSTRAINTS")
7.1.4 Requirements
(Ref: http://www.uniac.com/Requirements.html,
"Requirements")
7.1.5 Related Technology and Solution Strategies, and Ideas
(Ref:
http://www.uniac.com/RelatedTechnologyandIdeas.html,
"Related Technology and Ideas ")
Vanderheiden remarked that there was confusion with the ITA-SG web site information which seemed to suggest AIAP was advocating new architecture. He urged that the V2 site avoid giving this erroneous impression. he suggested removing or archiving any documentss studied which might confuse the aims of AIAP.
7.2 Research into Related Existing Standards, Organizations, and Technology
No action on this topic.
7.3 Background Information
No action on this topic.
8. Review of Draft Report from IT Accommodation Study Group Ad Hoc
Urban presented an overview of the V2 project with recommendations from ad hoc sub groups of the IT Accommodations Study Group. These are suggestions on how to manage the work of the project and are not requirements of the project proposal.
AIAP might be divided into 4 parts:
AIAP-RC, replacement of console or interface,
AIAP-PP, personal preferences and product parameters,
AIAP-SM, providing software modules to build new interface (java applets, etc.)
AIAP-M, metadata (what information needs to be passed).
Zimmermann commented that metadata is part of all 4 parts. LaPlant suggested www.epa.gov/edr for examples of metadata standards and registries. McCoy added that development of AIAP protocol is an iterative process between metadata and other parts. LaPlant said we need specifications for how to describe terms in metadata.
LaPlant said the minutes are to have a pointer to Urban's presentation documents and materials.
ACTION ITEM: Urban will furnish summary documents of presentation.
9. Review of Related Activities
9.1 Access Board Proposed Electronic and Information Technology
Accessibility Standards
Ref: http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/508index.htm,
"508 Index "
The draft of the final standard is not publicly available but if V2 is to have an impact we cannot take too lonk to get AIAP out.
9.2 Web Accessibility Initiative
Ref: http://www.w3.org/WAI/, "Web Accessibility
Initiative (WAI) Home Page"
Following discussion on the subject, LaPlant agreed to contact Judy Brewer about establishing a formal WAI liaison with V2.
Action Item: LaPlant will contact Judy Brewer about w3c/wai liaison
9.3 IEEE P2001 Web Engineering Best Practices Guidelines
Ref: http://computer.org/standards/Internet/index.htm,
"Internet Best Practices Standards Working Group "
Meiers said he will ask for a copy of draft ieee standards from ieee.org. He
noted that the standard will probably be out within a year.
He added that
AIAP needs to address security issues such as violateing firewall.
9.4 Other
LaPlant said V2 will have 2 reflectors- "WORK-DEF-V2" for principles, alternates and liaisons and "NCITS-V2" for general announcements. Everyone attending will be added to NCITS-V2. Shepard said the V2 reflector will be sponsored by NIST and will be ready by October 20.
ACTION ITEM: Sheppard will create reflectors at NIST for V2.
Urban asked if there are other standards activity. Vanderheiden noted that ANSI HFES200.1 is in ballotting now and he will check to see if we can get copies of it.
10. Tasks
10.1 Discussion of Proposed Tasks
Urban began the discussion with an overview of the V2 Project. He asked members to think about the 4 proposed AIAP parts, and consider what changes were needed and which part each member will work on. He suggested that the committee break into ad hoc groups to set up scope and requirements for each part.
Following some discussions Rideout suggested the committee should concentrate on information content questions, physical connections, and privacy issues.
Lint pointed out that there may be a need for adapters for physical connectors, but AIAP is a communications protocol independent of the physical connection.
McCoy added that remote console and software model are the 2 extremes of the problem. We need to look at what information do we need and why. How do we define information in terms of person with disability and what are the elements of an interface.
LaPlant added that there is another issue of the characteristics of access technology appliances that will use the AIAP.
Rideout noted that UIML (Universal Interface Markup Language) separated the elements of an interface from the interface.
Vanderheiden suggested that an interface is everything a user experiences, not just those things on the screen. We need to define the requirements and functions of an interface, not the architecture.
After some more discussion Meiers cautioned that we are using terms loosly. New members are requested to look at the material on the UNIAC site.
Roeder suggested that the interfaces can be seen as a sequence of
transactions and transaction sets. Gilman said transactions are similar to
McCoy's model. Laskowski agreed but noted there is
still need to distinguish
continuous, time dependent interactions; for example, flying a plane.
Ghazi urged that we build an abstract model first, then divide up the tasks.
LaPlantsaid we need:
* a generic description of what we intend to do
* priorities for the tasks
* a complete protocol for the simplest case
with a range of what we intend to do.
McCoy added that PWD privacy concerns also need a requirements list.
After discussion at length about the proposed AIAP break out, Urban said we
have 3 issues
1. we want to develop broad based standards,
2. there are
government mandates that companies want to address,
3. section 508 timeframe
is short
Urban suggested V2 task a group for strategic marketing, noting that AIAP standards need to not only be technically complete but also adopted by industry. Our client is industry and we need a group to carry back the message to industry on needed input and support for V2.
Vanderheiden asked Rideout if he would create a V2 newcommers guide to background information on AIAP. McCoy and roeder volunteered to help.
ACTION ITEM: Rideout, McCoy and Roeder will organize FAQ and V2 website to make V2 effort more understandable.
There was a discussion about government activities regarding section 508.
LaPlant informed the committee that the government has a contractor to help
agencies know what complies with section 508 standards. Vanderheiden has also
been asked to help. There is a lot of concern about the impact of section 508 on
the procurement process. Vanderheiden recommended that V2 add a liaison to
government 508/255 activities.
Urban said a goal of AIAP is to make it easier for industry to follow section 508 and section 255. He again emphasized that we need a strategic marketing plan.
Urban proposed a modified breakout as follows:
1 - Interface element
substitution and remote console
2 - Replacement interface Software
3 -
Preference modification behavior (a dynamic standard user interface)
4 -
Strategic Planning and Marketing
each group must create a scope, a list of requirements including tasks.
Group 4 must also identify needs of industry, friends in industry, liaison
activities, a list of priorities plus a marketing plan and schedule.
Rideout suggested adding a group 5 for security and privacy as a separate group and he was later tasked to be security privacy liaison.
ACTION ITEM: Rideout will do security privacy liaison for V2.
LaPlant recommended that someone in each group also take on metadata issue.
Trewin noted that the possibilities range from simple devices to very
complicated devices and suggested the first iteration is to look
at what
kinds of accessor and target devices we plan to support.
10.2 Break-out Sessions (Based on Modified Tasks)
The committee broke into working groups to look at 1 3 and 4 (see above), then reassembled to discuss progress.
Vanderheiden reported for group 1. Among the points discussed were:
*
some things may be too complex; eg., painting graphics via text commands,
*
how to classify things that are too difficult; eg. requiring eye hand
coordination,
* voluntary versus mandatory standards
Lint reported for group 4. Among the points noted were:
* industry
concern is 508 and government procurement,
* addressing concerns of
academia,
* there is no definition of compatibility,
* strategy is to
have discrete points on why V2 works,
* PWD advocacy groups concerns with
access,
* consumer needs
Lint added that AIAP will benefit to pwd and non pwd. Some issues that need
to be addressed are:
* priorities of tasks,
* legal requirements,
*
timeliness (6 months after issuance of 508),
* cost of implementation,
*
simplified processes for procurement.
Vanderheiden suggested that robustness, longevity of standard be added to this priority list. He said the list describes the drivers for the process but in not in a priority ranking.
There were discussions during which some members stressed industry need to deal with section 508 as soon as possible and some members voiced concerns that too much haste would produce a weak and unsatisfactory standard.
Baronas asked that we develop a specific project proposal that addresses 508 requirements and make it our first priority.
LaPlant suggested developing the project proposal off line, then bringing the proposal to the committee for Consideration.
After further discussion, Baronas moved to have a team develop a project proposal to address section 508 requirements and bring the proposal to the committee. McCoy, Lint Ghazi and Hebenstreit volunteered to work on the proposal and Laskowski offered to liaison to the process.
McCoy seconded the motion and LaPlant called for a vote. Before the vote was completed Baronas withdrew the motion.
On october 24 LaPlant will speak to ITRM which is chartered by GSA to
coordinate with NCITS and support the concensus process. For discussion on the
reflector, use "508" in the subject line.
McCoy summarized the result of group 3, which looked at an informational
model of an adjustable interface.
(Ref: V2/00-00007,
"Summary of Wayne McCoy presentation at meeting #001")
Groups 1 and 3 also made a list of all possible devices that
mightbecandidates for AIAP. This is intended to be a starting point for later
classification work.
(Ref: V2/00-00010,
"Work Document from ad hoc group B of plenary #1")
Vanderheiden asked that anyone knowing of any existing taxonomies to post the information to the work-def reflector. Baronas said there is a UN source and would try to locate it.
Urban suggested two ad hoc groups for further work. Groups 1 and 2 combine to form ad hoc 'A'. Groups 3 and 4 combine to form ad hoc B. Group 5 is not defined.
He proposed that each group look at what possible standards might be developed first for 508.
The committee discussed producing a standard by may 1, the approximate time when section 508 will take effect. Urban noted that there are only 2 plenary sessions before needing to vote out a document by may 1. The consensus was that this is too ambitious and that 18 months is a more realistic time frame.
LaPlant asked that each group report what they can do to address section 508 and when they can do it. Mccoy added that each group should develop scope and requirements.
Baronas asked that group leaders put the Action Items on the reflector for their group.
McCoy asked that each group also see if the informational model fits for scope and requirements.
Urban added that someone in each group needs to take on research.
ACTION ITEM: ad hoc groups A and B work on assignments, report and come up with scope and requirements
ACTION ITEM: Roeder will identify ad hoc group members in minutes.
The ad hoc groups and their members are as follows:
ad hoc A
GOTTFRIED Zimmermann - leader
NASSER GHAZI
SHARON
LASKOWSKI
KELSEY RIDEOUT
CHARLES SHEPPARD
SHARI TREWIN
GREGG
VANDERHEIDEN
ad hoc B
WAYNE MCCOY - leader
MIKE BURKS
ALFRED GILMAN
JOE
ROEDER
LaPlant clarified that there are 2 kinds of reports due-
* a summary
document of the plenary session groups to be forwarded to Roeder for the
minutes,
* ad hoc group reports to be presented at the next plenary.
Summary documents for both work groups are posted. Ref: V2/00-00009
"Work Document from ad hoc group A of plenary #1" and V2/00-00010
"Work Document from ad hoc group B of plenary #1"
LaPlant added that if any group has enough for a project proposal, they should come to LaPlant and others familiar with the project proposal process. SD-3 is the project proposal outline; also see the project proposal that created V2.
A suggestion was made to have temporary reflectors for groups to prepare reports between plenary sessions. Sheppard will set up sub list reflectors (V1A, V2B, V2C & V2D) and will password web site areas for archives of e mail.
LaPlant said the ad hoc groups can use government FTS for telephone conferencing.
ACTION ITEM: LaPlant and Laskowski will communicate conference information to ad hoc group leaders.
ACTION ITEM: LaPland and Urban will call group leaders bi-weekly for follow up.
Trewin urged that the strategy group should make an effort to get access technology organizations involved. Vanderheiden said he will speak at ATIA conference and will give out V2 contact information. Lint is taking on liaison for the marketing strategy group.
After another break out session, the ad hoc groups reported back to the entire committee.
ad hoc group A
* Zimmermann is leader.
* Trewin is scribe.
*
Trewin is responsible for scope and requirements.
* Laskowski is responsible
for research.
* Zimmermann is responsible for report and will provide member
list.
* ad hoc A group is open to other memberss.
* communication by
teleconferencing will be arranged for end of october.
* use e mail exchange
for discussion and repository.
* will answer question: "does Mccoy's
informational model apply?".
ad hoc group B
* McCoy is group leader.
* Roeder is scribe.
*
Gilman is responsible for scope and requirements.
* Burks is responsible for
research.
* Roeder will post team member list to reflector.
* current
Team members are
- Mccoy - leader
- Burks
- Gilman
- roeder
Urban said the strategic group wants to create a press release about V2. This can be passed out to as many as possible to promote AIAP.
LaPlant announced that he appoints Urban vice chair.
11. Technical Presentation, UIML
Marc Abrams of Harmonia, Inc., gave a presentation on UIML (Universal
Interface Mark up Language).
(Ref: http://www.UIML.org/, "UIML.ORG")
UIML is an example of developing service for multiple platforms or user devices. Developed over 3 years, UIML is designed to be an open standard.
Abrams described the goals and requirements of UIML and said there are advantages of a mark up language over programming code. Among the benefit is that it separates structures from content and solves multiple mapping problems (applications to devices).
UIML is really a metalanguage and it does not define tools for specific tasks. Developers have to add tool kit vocabularies. Programmers have created several vocabularies for java, etc.
UIML can work on different platforms, with more than a lowest common denominator set of functions. UIML needs to be rendered to an interface by an interpreter or a compiler and it can be rendered on client side or server side. It also provides greater protection from viruses.
ACTION ITEM: Abrams to send presentation documents to Roeder.
(Ref: http://www.harmonia.com/resources/index.htm)
12. Future Meeting Schedule
LaPlant recommended the committee have a face to face meeting every 2 months. Laskowski and Vanderheiden urged more frequent teleconferencing be held in between plenary sessions.
The next V2 meeting will be on December 7-8, 1000, in DC at NIST.
13. Review of Action Items
13.1 ACTION ITEM: LaPlant will provide a pointer to the voting record of NCITS on the V2 project proposal.
13.2 ACTION ITEM: LaPlant and Roeder will make project scope document clearer.
13.3 ACTION ITEM: Urban will furnish summary documents of presentation.
13.4 Action Item: LaPlant will contact Judy Brewer about w3c/wai liaison
13.5 ACTION ITEM: Sheppard will create reflectors at NIST for V2.
13.6 ACTION ITEM: Rideout, McCoy and Roeder will organize FAQ and V2 website to make V2 effort more understandable.
13.7 ACTION ITEM: Rideout will do security privacy liaison for V2.
13.8 ACTION ITEM: LaPlant will keep V2 informed on section508 developments.
13.9 ACTION ITEM: ad hoc groups A and B work on assignments, report and come up with scope and requirements
13.10 ACTION ITEM: Roeder will identify ad hoc group members in minutes.
13.11 ACTION ITEM: LaPlant and Laskowski will communicate conference information to ad hoc group leaders.
13.12 ACTION ITEM: LaPland and Urban will call group leaders bi-weekly
ACTION ITEM: Abrams to send presentation documents to Roeder.
14. Adjournment
Meeting #001 of V2 adjourned at 4:15 PM on Friday, October 13, 2000.
SUMMARY OF DOCUMENT AND INFORMATION LINKS REFERENCED IN THESE MINUTES
V2/00-SD-1, "Member list for V2"
V2/00-0003, "Project Proposal (Project "1464-D)"
V2/00-0004, "Agenda for meeting #1 of V2, 10/11-13/00"
V2/00-0005, "Minutes for meeting #1 of V2, 10/11-13/00"
V2/00-00007, "Summary of Wayne McCoy presentation at meeting #001"
V2/00-00010, "Work Document from ad hoc group B of plenary #1"
http://www.uniac.com/Reqts.html, "Universal Accessibility Protocol Requirements Document"
http://www.uniac.com/TermsReference.html, "Terms of Reference"
http://www.uniac.com/BG-Constraints.html, "PROBLEM AND CONSTRAINTS"
http://www.uniac.com/Requirements.html, "Requirements"
http://www.uniac.com/RelatedTechnologyandIdeas.html, "Related Technology and Ideas "
http://www.ncits.org/std_docs.html, "NCITS Standing Documents"
http://www.ncits.org/tc_home/v2.htm, "V2 -Information Technology Access Interfaces"
http://archimedes.stanford.edu//projects97.html, "Archimedes Projects"
http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/universal_remotes_and_interconnectivity/linkpage.htm, "Universal Remote Controls, Remote Consoles, and Other Interconnectivity Links Page"
http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/508index.htm, "508 Index"
http://www.w3.org/WAI/, "Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Home Page"
http://computer.org/standards/Internet/index.htm, "Internet Best Practices Standards Working Group"
http://www.UIML.org/, "UIML.ORG"
http://www.harmonia.com/resources/index.htm, "Harmonia: Resources "