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: mailto:ncits@itic.org

DOC: V2/01-0019
Date: June 8, 2001

Project: N/A
Ref. Doc: V2/00-003
Reply to: Bill LaPlant, V2 convener
 mailto:Bill.LaPlant@census.gov; blaplant@mindspring.com
MINUTES NCITS V2 PLENARY MEETING #4

Meeting Location:
Gallaudet University
800 Florida Avenue, NE
Washington, DC 20002

Meeting Dates:
Monday, May 7, 2001 - 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (ET) (Meeting Room 5, Kellogg Conference Center)
Tuesday, May 8, 2001 - 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (ET) (Meeting Room 5, Kellogg Conference Center)
Friday, May 11, 2001 - 12:00 PM - 3:00 PM (ET) (auditorium, Kellogg Conference Center)

1. Call to Order - Meeting called to order at 9:00 AM by Mark Urban

2. Introduction of Members and Observers
Note, (P)=Principal, (A)=Alternate, (L)=Liaison, (O)=Observer, (X)=Ex Officio; numbers in brackets [] denote day of attendance.

2.1 Members attending )Ref:V2/SD01 "V2 Member Organizations and Contact Information")

• Sharon Laskowski, Dept. of Commerce/NIST (P) [1 2 3]
• Bill LaPlant, Dept. of Commerce/Census (A) - Chair [1 2 3]
• Charles Sheppard, Dept. of Commerce/NIST (O) [1 2 3]
  Jim Kindirck, ERIM (P) [1 3]
  Vijay Gummadi, ERIM (A) [1 2 3]
• Shari Trewin, IBM (P) [1 2]
  Masahiko Kaneko, Microsoft (A) [1 2]
  MARGOT PEET, MITRE (P) [1 2 3]
• Joe Roeder, NIB (P) [1 2 3]
• Connie Myers, ORACLE (P) [3]
• Mark Urban, PSINET (P) [1 2]
  JOHN A. CHAPMAN, SHARE (P) [1 2 3]
• Gregg Vanderheiden, TRACE (P) [2 3]
• Gottfried Zimmermann, TRACE (A) [1 2]
• Al Gilman, TRACE (O) [1 2 3]
  Joy Relton, Unisys (P) [1 2 3]
  

2.2 Other Attendees

• Marci Ann Keiser, Accessibility Center of Excellence (O) [2 3]
  Janina Sajka, AFB (O) [1 2 3]
  Kevin Caves, Duke University (O) [1 2]
  Ed Reniker GSA (O) [3]
  John Neumann, Microsoft O( [1 2 3]
  

3. Approval of the Agenda (Ref: V2/01-0007 "

The agenda was amended to add item 8.3 presentation of Microsoft proposal.

the altered agenda was accepted (See ATTACHMENT- FINAL AGENDA FOR V2 PLENARY MEETING #4"AT THE END OF THESE MINUTES)

4. Approval of the Minutes for meeting #3 (ref: V2/01-0003 "Draft Minutes for plenary meeting #3 of V2, 2/7-8/2001")

Relton moved and Chapman seconded to accept the minutes.  Without objection, the minutes were accepted.

Later Roeder asked that the minutes be re-opened for an amendment.  LaPlant directed the minutes to be re-opened.

Roeder proposed an amendment that will change section 8.3 of the minutes so that the paragraph about connection technology and discovery method will read :

"

Korn said an AIAP standard need to pick the "wire"; such as, AIAP on Bluetooth or 802.11.  He added that the method of discovery needs to be standardized too.  Vanderheiden said this may be a labeling issue; e.g.,  "AIAP-Bluetooth".  LaPlant said these will be the first 2 items of the open issues list."

Without objections, the amendment is accepted.  LaPlant directed that the minutes be closed

5. Review of action items:

ACTION ITEM#3: Gilman will draft and post to work-def reflector a memo for w3 liaison letter saying what is overlap and type of expertise needed; coordinate with Urban. [p2/5.4] LaPlant to furnish comments. [P3/5.3]

obe

6. Administrative Reports

Bill LaPlant was elected Chair of V2 by NCITS to a 3 year term starting February, 2001.  Without international activities, the only Technical Committee officer elected is the chair, other officers are appointed by the chair.

LaPlant asked for a motion on confirmation of his appointments of vice chair and secretary.  Roeder reported that a quorum was present with 9 voting members present and 6 absent.

Chapman moved to confirm the appointment of mark Urban to be Vice chair. Trewin seconded the motion and the vote was 8-0-1-6 (for-against-abstain-absent

Relton moved to confirm the appointment of Joe Roeder to be Secretary. Urban seconded the motion and the vote was 9-0-0-6 (for-against-abstain-absent

A point of order was raised asking about the length of term for the appointed officers.  The term expires when the Chair's term expires; i.e., 3 years.

Roeder reported that the V2 web site is updated and expanded to show meeting information, links to documents such as plenary agenda and final minutes, plus password protected links to working draft documents.

7. Review of Related Activities

7.1 Access Board Proposed Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards ref: Federal Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards [http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/508standards.htm#PART 1194]

LaPlant reported that the FAR changes were released, with just a pointer to the 508 standards.  Section 508 goes into effect June 21, 2001, which allows for legal recourse; how it will apply If products meets the standards but are still not accessible may be resolved in the courts.

Sajka expressed a concern that the servicing area of IT is not addressed in Section 508 or by the FAR.  One concern Is how to define services, integrators, programmers, systems administrators and developers.

7.2 Web Accessibility Initiative ref: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Home Page

Gilman said WAI and a W3C protocol and formats group are working on guidelines for XML applications. Also, there is an early draft of XML protocol released ("son of SOAP"). Gilman said this is very active and he urged that we look at this.

7.3 IEEE P2001 Web Engineering Best Practices Guidelines ref: http://computer.org/standards/Internet/index.htm  Internet Practices Standards Working Group

LaPlant said they have closed changes to the draft and the document will be put up for adoption.  They will still be working on more revisions.

Laskowski asked if we can get copy of the draft and LaPlant said to send a request to HFES, with a copy to ANSI.

LaPlant will assess the proposed standards in the process for V2 relevance. Laskowski stated that getting on the canvassing list and getting standards adapted is an open process.

NEW ACTION ITEM: LaPlant and Laskowski will formalize a request from V2 to be put on the canvassing list. [P4/7.3]

7.4 Accessibility Forum ref: http://adit.aticorp.org/

Kindrick said ADIT is a GSA sponsored program with the goal to bring stakeholders together, to find agreement on metrics and methods for evaluating products for section 508. the meeting is to dialog, form strategic groups (10 to 15 teams), identify scope and resources needed.

7.5 Other

Sajka spoke about digital talking books (e-books) and Daisy digital talking books. Two groups (all but US, and US) have defined standards for digital talking books.  An ISO standard will start with version 3 but have postponed issuance, This standard is 
based on SMIL 2.0.  The DAISY consortium has released version 2.02 and Sweden now has 7 digital studios.  Sajka suggested there could be an interface with V2.

The standard is proving to be an easy hierarchal method of interface but a big problem is digital rights management.  A database for stakeholders to submit requirements is expected to be published this summer.

NEW ACTION ITEM, Sajka: give presentation on E-books at next V2 plenary. [P4/7.4]

8. Presentations

8.1 ad hoc Group Reports

8.1.1 ad hoc Meeting of the Whole

 

Zimmermann said the meeting was very good and spoke about Microsoft's Victoria project for developing an abstract (canonical) user interface.  Trace is working with Microsoft to integrate some of the results of this work into a standard with V2. The project is intended as a test bed or underlying test reference Bluetooth. It can involve universal p&p and slots for UI as examples.

The project looks at the use of abstract user interfaces and describes different scenarios that could be used. In all scenarios it is necessary for any ultimate system or remote control device system to set on top of this Framework.

 

Further discussion was postponed to the Microsoft presentation (see agenda item 8.3).

8.1.2 Management

 

Urban said the management ad hoc group holds a phone conference about every 2 weeks.  LaPlant invited all V2 members to participate in the management conference calls.

Zimmermann asked if everyone is on the reflectors.  Sheppard will revisit the sign up on the work-def and public reflectors.

NEW ACTION ITEM, Sheppard: make sure public reflector errors are not V2 members; All V2 members: check that E-mail address is current. [P4/7.4]

Urban said he  is currently the principle delegate for PSINet and will later be the representative for another group.  Cynthia Waddell and Marci Ann Keiser will likely then be the principle and alternate delegates for PSINet.

8.1.3 ad hoc A

 

Zimmermann reported there was no activity by this group since the last plenary.

 

8.2 Comparison of XForms/XProtocol/Futureforms

 

Gilman began the discussion with a brief overview of communication platforms and remote consoles.  The aim is to allow for the use of personal equipment to access public services.  V2 is interested in interoperability with other systems and also with a network with third party services; i.e., direct services either through UPNP or JINI Technology. Once individual is on a network they can discover what services are available by an accessible method.

There are three classes or scenarios of target services: web services, home appliances and ATMs.  These are three  examples and we need to walk through each to see what the interface is like.  Until we see the differences, we can't build the framework.  We need to look at families of service types.

He suggested this could be graphically represented as a scatter plot or tree view which can fold and unfold.  In the graphic scatter plot representation, the X-axis increases with complexity of accessor devices and the Y- axis increases with complexity of services through concurrent or independent threads.  A list view example of this would be a digital talking book.  The Connection would be determinable by the user.

 

Another UI interface mode of operation is to download different UI as opposed to having the target service provide them.  This could allow access to separate internal UI component that can either be bypassed or integrated rather than manipulated through architecture.

 

XForms allows for multiple user interfaces.  One abstract UI can be used everywhere through an XForms model.

 

NEW ACTION ITEM, Gilman: provide summary of the discussion he led on 
XForms, etc. [P4/8.2]

Kaneko presented a proposal by Microsoft for an AIAP standard.  Reference: V2/01-0010.  Microsoft is doing a proof of concept on their proposal and may offer changes.

NEW ACTION ITEM, Kaneko: send power point slides from presentation on Microsoft proposal for draft standard to Roeder to register as a reference document. [p4/8.3]

In the discussion that followed, the group looked at how the proposal could be used as the basis for an AIAP standard for remote console.  The AbUI or technology neutral parts of the proposal need to be separated from the proprietary or technology specific parts.

Kindrick said the scope should be for the whole standard, with sub parts for remote console, etc.  Vanderheiden asked if we  Can have a 3 part standard and pass just 1 part.  We  may need to look at the project to see if it needs to be divided up.  Trewin said there should also be a part for the requirements of the target device/services.

NEW ACTION ITEM, Ghazi/Kaneko: move all UPNP specific items into a reference document for UPNP and ask Peter Korn to create an equivalent 
document for JINI. [P4/8.3]

Vanderheiden said Trace will do the generic part for Microsoft and Sun Micro Systems.  Gilman and LaPlant later recommended that  Ghazi, Trewin, Vanderheiden and Korn review 
and comment on the next draft of the UPNP proposal.

Vanderheiden later recommended  creating a working TWiki document for an RC standard based on the Microsoft draft.  The editor team will be Ghazi, Trewin and Vanderheiden; Korn will be urged to comment and generate an equivalent draft for JINI.

LaPlant said we need to make sure we agree on terminology.

NEW ACTION ITEM, LaPlant/Urban/Kindrick: work on glossary, acronyms and abbreviations. [P4/8.3]

Vanderheiden asked if AbUI is a Microsoft trademark or can V2 use it.  Kaneko  said it is not a trademark and he will determine if any terminology in the proposal is proprietary to Microsoft.

Urban asked if we need to map to existing K5 definitions.  Neumann said this is never done.  LaPlant said the only obligation of V2 is to turn over our glossary to K5.

Some questions and comments posed by the members include the following:

Vanderheiden asked if there is an IP assumption.

Zimmermann asked if we really need the guard.

Vanderheiden said the standard should include a structure that supports layered 
help; this is a capability, not a requirement.

Vanderheiden suggested support for IPX (phonetic pronunciation tables).

Zimmermann asked if there is another way than using ECMA script and LaPlant asked  if we want ECMA script or something else.

NEW ACTION ITEM, Roeder: add question of ECMA script to issues list. [P4/8.3]

LaPlant said when an evaluation of several alternatives is made we should record the evaluation and analysis of the choices in a separate document; this will get folded into a rationale document.  Vanderheiden suggested Microsoft should make an open issues document list and refer to it with later drafts of their proposal.

Vanderheiden said there needs to be support for some secure text or encryption schema.  He suggested we should form a sub group to work on this security issue.

LaPlant said those members that made comments should make sure their comments are 
captured correctly on the open issues list by Microsoft.

9.  Discussion of tasks and priorities

9.1 Working Sessions

There are requests for reports on the work of V2.  If any member intends to give a presentation about V2, they should tell management what will be said and where the presentation will be given so management can give them official authorization.

Gilman said we need to post a primer on V2 and proposed we go through Vanderheiden's presentation and decide if we can put it on the public site.  The group then did this and created a two page document.

Vanderheiden moved that that the '2 pager document drafted today' be adopted as the V2 description for dissemination to the ADIT meeting.  The motion was tabled until the end of the day's session, at which time the two-pager description and the tabled motion were read.  Relton seconded the motion which was then put to a vote.  The motion passed by a vote of 8-0-0-7 (for-against-abstain-absent).

LaPlant said the Chair will appoint a vocabulary representative.

Kindrick asked if we need a glossary of the terms in the draft scope and requirements document.  LaPlant said we should go through the scope and requirements document, find terms and come up with definitions.  we should create a TWiki glossary document.

Urban suggested looking at the ITA study group materials for additional terms.

Sheppard volunteered to liaison to K5 on vocabulary.

Kindrick volunteered to do a first course with the requirements document.

NEW ACTION ITEM, Kindrick: start a glossary based on terms in the requirements document. [P4/9.1]

Vanderheiden later suggested we  set up a V2G reflector for the glossary and use the V2C reflector for the management ad hoc.  Sheppard said anyone can sign up for any reflector.

10. New Items.

        10.1 Liaison strategy re: IEEE P2001, Accessibility Forum, and W3C

Kindrick noted that the ADIT forum focused on an interoperable API and suggested looking at the forum as priming AIAP.  Chapman said AIAP is where industry and section 508 can be sutured and that industry wants 1 API to propagate across products.  Gummadi added that V2 is a connection point to this issue.

Kindrick asked if a project was needed to get the stakeholders together, determine what the access technology elements are, and get the specification to be developed by V2.

LaPlant said we have three possible scenarios:
1. ADIT could produce a document that meets ANSI format, V2 could move it on a fast track through NCITS and ANSI.  For example, if an API is to be specified, the ADIT project and subgroup would get together a document, then presented to NCITS or V2 for fast track.

2. ADIT could come up with a project and staff, come to V2 and do the work inside the V2 process.  Neumann said the V2 Chair has the authority to set up a subgroup to do this kind of work.

3. ADIT could make a proposal to NCITS or V2 and V2 could take it on.

LaPlant said these scenarios take advantage of V2's organizational structure, teleconference procedure, TWiki and list reflectors.  Gilman noted that such a V2 subcommittee would inherit the V2 process rules and provide a mechanism for a paper trail.

Laskowski said fast track means V2 would need NCITS approval, would need V2 member buy-in, and would need to educate and be pro active.  She added that fast track approval takes 6 months.

Gilman pointed out that V2 has no project to pursue a fast track API.

LaPlant suggested alternative 3 has zero probability; alternative 2 would be possible only if someone with resources for the effort would join; alternative 1 would not be fast and would not be easy to pursue.

Sajka noted these scenarios would be easy for industry to pursue, but not so easy for the disability groups which have fewer resources.

Vanderheiden expressed concern about the time v2 has to spare, and concern about drawing in groups with different agenda (i.e., political problems).

LaPlant said this discussion was only to give members a heads up on what possible connections with the ADIT Forum might develop and that no decision is required now.

11. Future Meetings

LaPlant said we need to project a schedule for the rest of the year and proposed a Plenary meetings of 2- possibly 3- days, every 3 months and backed up to a weekend.

Zimmermann suggested July 30 and 31; October 15 and 
16; January 14 and 15).

Trace offered to host the next plenary in Madison, WI, so members could take advantage of Vanderheiden's course on usability and accessibility.

The next plenary is tentatively scheduled for Monday and Tuesday, July 30, 31, at Trace.  The October dates are left open.  All members need to update the public calendar.

There will be a V2 managers conference call next Friday at 1 PM.

12. Summary of Action Items

ITEM
DESCRIPTION
RESPONSIBILITY

#003
draft and post to work-def reflector a memo for w3 liaison letter saying what is overlap and type of expertise needed; coordinate with Urban. [p2/5.4]
Gilman

#004
organize FAQ and V2 website to make V2 effort more understandable. [p1/10.1]
Roeder/Vanderheiden

#005
find someone to do security privacy liaison for V2 [P3/5.5]
LaPlant

#006
keep V2 informed on Section 508 regulations developments. [P1/13.8]
LaPlant

#011
draft 2 letters to NCITS about copyright issues re EDAPTA and Stanford. [P2/6]
LaPlant

#016
Word-smith the purpose and scope on the TWiki site. [P2/9.0]
All

#017
be editor for the final wording of purpose and scope. [P2/9.0] (To be combined with action item #16 at the next plenary)
Urban

#018
provide more information about AT&T WorldNet access devices. [P2/9.0]
Burks

#022
review draft ANSI ISO/IEC handbook 71. [P3/5.22]
Laskowski/Sheppard

#026
draft a policy for participation by telecommunications for consideration by NCITS/V2. [P2/5.11]
LaPlant

#027
Find someone to do security privacy liaison for V2. [p1/10.1] [p3/5.5]
LaPlant

#040
talk to Ghazi about net meeting prior to next ad hoc V2A meeting. [P3/11.]
Zimmermann

#046
Provide more explanation [detail?] for protocol requirement for human comprehensible text/characters [P3/9.2]
Vanderheiden

#049
Decide if comments on collaboration documents should contain suggested text change and rationale, not just state concerns. [P3/9.2]
Management ad hoc

#051
give presentation on E books at next plenary. [P4/7.4]
Sajka

#053
post 'call for patents' document to public reflector. [p4/8.35]
Roeder

#054
provide summary of the discussion Gilman led on X-Forms, etc. [P4/8.2]
Gilman

#055
move all UPNP specific items into a reference document for UPNP and ask Peter Korn to create an equivalent doc for JINI [P4/8.3]
Ghazi/Kaneko

#056
send power point slides from presentation on Microsoft proposal for draft standard to Roeder to register as a reference document. [p4/8.3]
Kaneko

#057
work on glossary, acronyms and abbreviations. [P4/8.3] start a glossary based on terms in the requirements document. [P4/9.1]
LaPlant/Urban/Kindrick

#058
add question of ecmascript to issues list. [P4/8.3]
Roeder

#059
formalize a request from V2 to be put on the canvassing list. [P4/7.3]
LaPlant/Laskowski

13. Adjournment

The fourth plenary meeting of V2 adjourn at 1:50 PM on Friday, May 11, 2001.

ATTACHMENT- FINAL AGENDA FOR V2 PLENARY MEETING #4

Doc: V2/01-0007
Date: April 22, 2001
Subject: Draft Agenda, NCITS/V2, Plenary Meeting 4
Project: Administrative
Ref. Doc:
Reply to: Bill LaPlant
Phone: 301-457-4887; 703-360-9184
email: bill.laplant@census.gov, blaplant@mindspring.com

DRAFT AGENDA
NCITS V2 IT Access Interfaces Technical Committee
Plenary Meeting Number 4

Location:
Gallaudet University,
Kellogg Conference Center
Meeting Room 5
800 Florida Ave N.E.
Washington, D.C. 20002
301-457-4887 (Bill LaPlant) or
843-760-3792 (Viet Godfrey)

Meeting Dates:
Monday, May 7, 2000 - 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (EDT) (Meeting Room 5)
Tuesday, May 8, 2000 - 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM (EDT) (Meeting Room 5)
Friday, May 11, 2000 - 1:00 PM - 5:00 PM (EDT) (Meeting Room 5)

Meeting Registration: http://www.nist.gov/ncits

1. Call to Order (Mr. Bill LaPlant - Chairman)

2. Introduction of attendees.
Ref: V2/00-SD-1 List of Members and Contact Information

3. Approval of the Agenda.
Ref: V2/01-0007   (this document)

4. Approval of the Minutes for plenary meeting #3 ref: V2/01-0003 "Draft Minutes for plenary meeting #3 of V2, 2/7-8/2001)"

5. Review of action items:

ACTION ITEM #3: Gilman will draft and post to work-def reflector a memo for w3 liaison letter saying what is overlap and type of expertise needed; coordinate with Urban. [p2/5.4] LaPlant to furnish comments. [P3/5.3]

ACTION ITEM #4: Roeder and Vanderheiden will organize FAQ and V2 website to make V2 effort more understandable.
[p1/10.1] [P3/5.4]

ACTION ITEM #6: LaPlant to keep V2 informed on section508 developments. [p1/13.8]

ACTION ITEM #8: Zimmermann will post the remote console standard requirements list (as it resulted from the plenary
discussion) to the V2 work-def reflector. [P2/8.1.2]

ACTION ITEM #10: All: Review and comment on the Vanderheiden ATIA presentation. post comments on the work-def
reflector. Vanderheiden urges all to furnish more comments
to improve document for use on V2 website. [P2/6] [P3/5.10]

ACTION ITEM #11: LaPlant will draft 2 letters to NCITS about copyright issues re EDAPTA and Stanford. [P2/6]

ACTION ITEM #15: Urban will give document with McCoy's new model to Roeder for minutes. [P2/8.1.3]

ACTION ITEM #16: All: Word-smith the purpose and scope on the TWiki site. [P2/9.0]

ACTION ITEM #17: Urban will be editor for the final wording of purpose and scope. [P2/9.0]

ACTION ITEM #18: Burks will provide more information about AT&T WorldNet access devices. [P2/9.0]

ACTION ITEM #22: Lakowski and Sheppard will look further to determine if UN taxonomy model is appropriate for V2.
[P2/9.2] and will look at draft ANSI ISO/IEC handbook 71. [P3/5.22]

ACTION ITEM #23: Ghazi will make arrangements for teleconferencing the next plenary meeting. [P2/11]

ACTION ITEM #26: LaPlant will draft a policy for participation by telecommunications for consideration by NCITS/V2.
[P2/5.11] LaPlant Will specify procedures for electronic participation to ensure attendance takes place; Chapman will
send LaPlant copy of law text on electronic meeting attendance. [P3/5.26]

ACTION ITEM #27: LaPlant will Find someone to do security privacy liaison for V2. [p1/10.1] [p3/5.5]

ACTION ITEM #30: LaPlant will Check NCITS rules on which TC officers are appointed and which are elected. [P3/6.]

ACTION ITEM #31: Urban will Nail down room number at CSUN, put together announcement package for review by next
Management ad hoc conference call. [P3/7.1]

ACTION ITEM #32: Roeder will Get from Urban electronic version of Vanderheiden presentation and attach to minutes.
[P3/7.1]

ACTION ITEM #33: Gummadi will post to work def the announcement that went to the Universal Access Working Group (UAWG)
on the planned kick off meeting of the ADIT project which will be at NIST in April. [P3/7.1]

ACTION ITEM #35: Ghazi, Kaneko will Send slide show of February 7 presentation to v2 members.  Will advise V2 in
writing if canonical user interface work will be contributed to open standard; Kaneko will send document to Ghazi, who
can decide and forward to V2.
Urban will Follow up with Ghazi on canonical user interface release document.
Urban will Coordinate with Ghazi on Microsoft hosting April 6 working ad hoc meeting in Redland, WA. [P3/8.3]

ACTION ITEM #36: LaPlant will Send warning letter to non-attendants citing NCITS rule that will forfeit committee
membership. [P3/9.1]

ACTION ITEM #40: Zimmermann will Talk to Ghazi about net meeting prior to next ad hoc V2A conference call.

ACTION ITEM #41: Urban will clean up and distribute document developed at end of plenary to work def reflector.
[P3/9.2]

ACTION ITEM #42: Zimmermann will Write memo that describes evaluation of UIML as related to current AIAP development.
[P3/9.2]

ACTION ITEM #43: Trewin will rewrite comment to requirements document.  [P3/9.2]

ACTION ITEM #44: Gilman will Create new proposed language changes to requirement 2. [P3/9.2]

ACTION ITEM #46: Vanderheiden will Provide more explanation [detail?] for protocol requirement for human comprehensible
text/characters; Vanderheiden's comment in requirements
document may need to be broken up into 2 parts. [P3/9.2]

ACTION ITEM #47: Management ad hoc will Decide deadline period for finalizing items on requirements doc. [P3/9.2]

ACTION ITEM #48: Zimmermann will Move note from requirements 16 into technical document. [P3/9.2]

ACTION ITEM #49: Management AD HOC will Decide if comments on collaboration documents should contain suggested text
change and rationale, not just state concerns. [P3/9.2]

ACTION ITEM #50: ALL will Review and comment on requirements document on TWIKI by March 1. [P3/9.2]

7. Review of Related Activities

7.1 Access Board Proposed Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards ref: Federal Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards [http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/508standards.htm#PART 1194] (LaPlant)

7.2 Web Accessibility Initiative ref: http://www.w3.org/WAI/   Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Home Page (LaPlant, Gilman)

7.3 IEEE P2001 Web Engineering Best Practices Guidelines ref: http://computer.org/standards/Internet/index.htm
Internet Practices Standards Working Group   (Meiers)

7.4 Accessibility Forum ref: http://adit.aticorp.org/ (LaPlant, Kindrick)

7.4 Other
 

8.1 ad hoc Group Reports

8.1.1 ad hoc Meeting of the Whole (Ghazi)

8.1.2 Management (Urban)

8.1.3 ad hoc A (Zimmermann)

8.2 Comparison of XForms/Xprotocol/Futureforms (Gilman).  Discussion to follow.

9.1 Working Sessions

        10.1 Liaison strategy re: IEEE P2001, Accessibility Forum, and W3C

11. Future Meetings

12. Summary of Action Items

13.. Adjournment

Schedule

Monday AM
1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Monday PM
6, 7, 8

Tuesday AM
9

Tuesday PM
9 (continued), 10, 11, 12

Friday PM
10 (continued), 12 (continued), 13