Madentec, an assistive technology vendor that makes head trackers and on-screen keyboards, is intending to join V2. Madentec's CEO, Randy Marsden, is co-chair of the Assistive Technology Industry Association (ATIA)

http://www.jtc1.org/jtc1map.asp?orcode=ISO*slash*IEC&tccode=JTC*space*1&sccode=SC*space*35&wgcode=&sgcode= JTC 1 OnLine

http://www.itl.nist.gov/div896/emaildir/v2c/msg00138.html
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div896/emaildir/v2c/msg00125.html
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div896/emaildir/v2c/msg00120.html
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div896/emaildir/v2c/msg00119.html
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div896/emaildir/v2c/msg00116.html

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

http://computer.org/standards/Internet/index.htm - Internet Practices Standards Working Group

http://www.accessibilityforum.org/ - Accessibility Forum Home Pages

http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/508standards.htm#PART 1194 - Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards

8.2.1 V2A - AIAP-RC Editing.

Ref:

Zimmermann reported on the progress made by V2A on the draft AIAP-URC document. The group discussed and reached consensus on 45 issues and the editors made a number of non-technical edits. The revised documents were presented for V2 acceptance.

Motion: (V2A ad hoc) that the draft AIAP-URC Closed Issues document version 2.9 be accepted.
The motion passed by unanimous consent.

Motion: (V2A ad hoc) that the draft AIAP-URC working document version 2.9 be approved and become draft AIAP-URC working document version 3.0.
The motion passed by unanimous consent.

Zimmermann then presented an overview of the draft standard. He discussed 4 modalities:

• 1. richness
• 2. complexity
• 3. responsiveness
• 4. navigational flexibility (random access)

He gave examples for the 4 modalities with approximate values for the achievable levels with AIAP. Looking at where to go from here, Zimmermann said he wants to look in detail at XForms. if we go in the direction of XForms, there will be dramatic change. He said we could do an XForms review by plenary #8 but should move the Target Date for Initial Public Review (Milestone 4) to march 2003.

Motion: (Urban/LaPlant) that milestone 4 be changed to March 31, 2003.
The motion passed by unanimous consent.

Gilman said that we want to find out if AAIML can grow to fill the entire solution space. The AAIML documents is 1 particular interface. We want the abstractions broad enough so it can subdivide to all the specializations. We need to look at how to put in the dotted line and find all the things shared by each special form.

8.2.2 Framework.

Ref:

Gilman said V2B has no document drafts at this time and offered some Framework Talking Points. Further discussions on framework were deferred to the scenarios discussions in agenda item 8.2.6.

The V2B minutes were added to the public record

8.2.3 V2C - Managers.

Urban led a review of administrative items.

The managers action item and the notes of managers conference calls are posted regularly to V2C. The notes of managers conference call since the previous plenary will also be collected and registered.

 

Ref:

Roeder offered a draft of a V2 brochure and asked for comments. Zimmermann proposed changing the section title "How might the V2 standards work" to "How might the V2 standards work with a Universal Remote Console". The change will be made and NIB will print 1,000 copies for the CSUN conference. AFB and NIB will produce 50 braille copies for CSUN. Roeder proposed doing print/braille cards with the V2 web address for the RESNA conference.

Motion: (LaPlant/Chapman) that INCITS V2 thank NIB for the work done on the graphics and layout of the V2 brochure and that the Chair send a letter to NIB transmitting these sentiments.
The motion passed by unanimous consent.

ACTION, LaPlant will send a letter on behalf of INCITS V2 to NIB thanking them for the work done on the graphics and layout of the V2 brochure. [P7/8.2.3]

LaPlant said V2C already has the authority to decide on any materials for representing V2 but will distribute such materials for comment 2 weeks (or as much time as possible) prior to public release.

Trewin and Zimmermann will investigate the possibility of a V2 presentation at a July 8 event.

Caves said the available dates at the RESNA conference for V2 plenary 8 are Thursday & Friday, June 27 & 28.

Motion: (Chapman/Kindrick) that the next V2 plenary be co-located with the June 27-July 1 RESNA conference in Minneapolis, MN, and that the dates be selected jointly between RESNA and the managers task group V2C.
The motion passed by unanimous consent.

Caves said there will be Internet service and Chapman said he will provide wireless connection information.

LaPlant said the Human Factors and Ergonomic Society moved the date of their Fall conference in Baltimore.

Ref:

After checking the dates when Vanderheiden and Haritos-Shea are doing presentations, Sheppard said there would not be a conflict with the proposed dates of October 2-3-4, 2002, for plenary #9 of V2. The extra day for the plenary is to accommodate an INCITS training for V2.

Chapman said the next SHARE conference will be in San Diego in late April of 2003. He suggested we request a sessions to present information about V2.

8.2.4 V2M - Metadata.

Ref:

Sheppard said V2M had 2 telecoms since the previous plenary. The task group believes we need at least 3 conceptual models: one for users, one for services and one for task and purpose. Gilman identified a candidate model that might be used to develop the user model and said the task and purpose model might not be necessary.

Sheppard said he attended an L8 meeting and said when V2 has a model ready we can present it to L8 for comments. He obtained materials including guides on ISO/IEC 11179 (Metadata Registry Coalition) from Judith Newton, Chair, L8 Special Interest Group.

ACTION, Sheppard will send copy of his plenary report document to Roeder. [P7/8.2.4]

LaPlant said he distributed a graphic showing interlinking of several models to provide a structure for how we look at the metadata. This was distributed to V2M and LaPlant will resend it to work-def.

Haritos-Shea discussed the work of the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative which may be useful to V2M. She will post the reference information.

ACTION, Haritos-Shea will contact IMS invite them to join V2. [P7/9.1]

ACTION, Sheppard will post the L8 guide on ISO 11179 to the V2 FTP site at NIST. [P7/8.2.4]

8.2.5 V2S - Security.

There was no report.

8.2.6 V2G - Glossary and Scenarios.

Ref:

The report from Jim Kindrick on V2G is in the referenced power point presentation

The scope of responsibility of V2G includes:

• Glossary (terminology and definitions, web site host)
• Scenarios (general requirements for repository, form and function)
• Prototype road maps (for development effort)

The group had one conference call and set work priorities. The scenarios and working documents drives the glossary and the scenarios drive the prototypes; consequently, the starting point is with scenarios.

The initial scenarios collected include pictures (diagrams with accompanying text), narratives of the URC. The group is exploring use case diagrams and wants to collect scenarios, including some on situational (or temporary, environmentally caused) disabilities.

Kindrick summarized the status of open issues that are wholly or partly assigned to V2G. There was a walk through and discussion of the open issues. See the V2master list of open and closed issues at http://www.itl.nist.gov/TWiki/bin/view/NCITSV2/MasterListOfOpenAndClosedIssues.

ACTION, Gilman will develop 1 to 3 scenarios on layered help. [P7/8.2.6]

LaPlant said V2G should create a home for definitions and a home for scenarios and then we will have a place to raise issues. He reminded the committee that we have an obligation to go to K5 with new definitions.

ACTION, Haritos-Shea will set up the glossary document in TWiki. [P7/8.2.6]

ACTION, Sajka/Haritos-Shea will explore alternative host for V2 working web site. [P7/8.2.6]

ACTION, Kindrick will contact K5 and get advice on how to reference terms and definitions. [P7/8.2.6]

Kindrick described his observations on the characteristics of scenarios. He quoted a definition: "a use case specifies the behavior of a system or a part of a system and is a description of a set of sequences of actions, including variants, that a system performs to yield an observable result of value to an actor. ".

Kindrick showed some example scenarios which included narratives and diagrams. He illustrated a use case template with a tabulation of actors and roles.

Sajka noted a number of difficulties with the scenario of a blind person using a braille display URC. She noted that it is unlikely a person would try to read an expensive braille device with 1 hand to safely travel with a cane or guide dog to an ATM. She noted other problems and asked why use hi tech when low tech works.

Pitman said mobility disabilities has similar issues but the Clarissa example for the mobility case would work. Sajka said she did not have a disagreement on that point but for blind cases it would be better to focus on home appliances. Kindrick said it is important to have scenarios that solve the right problem appropriate to the consumer.

Kindrick ask that scenarios in any shape or form be sent to him at jim.kindrick@altarum.org Urban asked Sajka for some representative scenarios.

ACTION, Sajka will do some representative scenarios before CSUN. [P7/8.2.6]

ACTION, Sajka will provide 1 pager on references for location technologies and outline the problems. [P7/8.2.6]

V2/02-0004, V2 plenary 7 Executive Session minutes

V2/02-0019 Diagram of URC overview (by Katie Haritos-Shea)