Thread Subject: Re: The cause vs. the symptom

From: Diane Golden
Date: Tue, Mar 18 2008 4:10 PM

• Return to this mailing list's archives
• View all messages in this thread
• Next message in thread: None
• Previous message in thread: Peter Korn: "Re: The cause vs. the symptom"
• Messages sorted by: Author | Thread | Date

Unfortunately, I have to say regardless of wording it is a practical problem
during implementation. All of this seems to focus on E&IT and AT used
internally within the agency for employees. From our experience, that is
not the big problem we have with procurement. It is the externally facing
web-based applications used by the public that give us the most trouble
during a procurement. We are potentially looking at interoperability with
the universe of AT (and many times old versions of AT) that could be used by
those accessing the application. Including a requirement for that kind of
interoperability into the specs of a bid and then evaluating conformance is
not possible for us. We simply cannot undertake interoperability testing
ourselves and the vendors responding to the bid are not able to do so
either.

Diane

-----Original Message-----
From: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED =
[mailto: = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ]On Behalf Of Peter Korn
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2008 11:54 AM
To: TEITAC Committee
Subject: Re: [teitac-committee] The cause vs. the symptom


Hi Randy, all,

As this thread goes to the heart of several provisions we are talking about
today, I want to highlight it again.

I believe we have three variants of "the question". They are:

#1 Randy's initial question-statement:
"Should Section 508 require that an E&IT product interoperate with available
assistive technology?"

#2 My suggested re-wording of Randy's question-statement, casting the issue
in procurement terms:
"Should Section 508 require that agencies procure only E&IT products which
interoperate with available assistive technologies (where not an undue
burden on the agency)?"

#3 My take on the question-statement:
"Should Section 508 require that agencies procure only those E&IT platforms,
those E&IT applications, and those assistive technologies, that interoperate
with each other in order to provide an accessible E&IT environment (where
not an undue burden on the agency)?"


Do any other TEITAC members have thoughts about this? Also, do any other
TEITAC members (and especially folks from government & advocacy) have
thoughts about the characterizations of "key issues for the various
stakeholders"? Perhaps if we are able to find common ground on the
question-statement & key issues, we can get closer to consensus on how to
address this in our provisions & proposed language to the Access Board.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.


Randy,

Thank you. This is a very wise approach.

May I suggest a minor modification to your question? I suggest we phrase
it as: "Should Section 508 require that agencies procure only E&IT products
which interoperate with available assistive technologies (where not an undue
burden on the agency)?" I make this suggestion to highlight the fact that
the burden is always on agencies (who typically choose to shift some of that
burden onto industry through the procurement process, the FAR, VPATs,
indemnification clauses, etc.).

Likewise, I'd like to suggest minor re-wordings of your otherwise
excellent characterization of the various positions/key issues for the
various stakeholders:

1. E&IT Industry: "We can't be responsible for what we aren't delivering.
If we deliver only the app, we can't be responsible for the platform. If we
deliver only the platform, we can't be responsible for the app. And in all
cases, we can't be responsible for the AT (unless of course we are
delivering that too). We are happy to agree to expose information
technically that AT can use, but we can't be responsible for whether, when,
and how that AT actually makes use of it (or fails to make use of it)."

2. Consumers & Advocates: "Fundamentally this all needs to work together
so that employees with disabilities have an E&IT environment that is
accessible, efficient, and productive. Agencies cannot simply purchase E&IT
that exposes information to AT if they aren't also purchasing AT that
utilizes that information and otherwise works with the E&IT. In fact, we
don't really care how the parts work together, so long as they do in fact
work together. Further, if the necessary AT doesn't exist, then of course
the E&IT shouldn't be purchased. And since E&IT has the most resources, we
expect that E&IT will do the bulk of the work in making the interoperability
happen."

3. Assistive Technology Industry: [I don't suggest any re-wording of this]

4. Agencies: "We need to have information that allows us to procure things
that work together. We know that AT is often a necessary part of the
solution, but we don't know what platforms & apps work with what AT.
Without that knowledge, we can't do our job."


For me, I think there is a more appropriate version of what you put forth
as the key question, to wit: "Should Section 508 require that agencies
procure only those E&IT platforms, those E&IT applications, and those
assistive technologies, that interoperate with eachother in order to provide
an accessible E&IT environment (where not an undue burden on the agency)?"
The subtle shift here in the question for me subsumes the issue of "existing
AT". You can't procure what doesn't exist. But this way of looking at the
problem makes it more clear that this three-party dance needs three
cooperative dance partners.

Randy - if I understand you correctly, you see this shift in the question
as lowering the incentives for E&IT to work with AT. Is that correct? I
don't see such a lowering. As per the FPC, unless my product is
self-voicing, self-magnifying, self-..., I cannot put it forth as a total
and accessible solution unto itself. I can only put it forth as a piece of
the solution. The question is, does the agency recognize my viewpoint that
I cannot be responsible for AT? It still cannot purchase my product without
the commercial availability of AT that interoperates with my product. I am
still strongly incented to make sure such AT exists, to work with AT
vendors, etc. BUT if there is an interoperability problem, my potential
liability is much more clearly limited.


Regarding your funding idea, I think it is great. I fear that it is
outside the scope of TEITAC in particular, and the Access Board in general
(not that we can't suggest it anyway). But it certainly isn't outside the
scope of other government engagements around accessibility that are taking
places now and in the future.

Regarding your idea of hiring people with disabilities (including
especially folks with more severe disabilities who would likely use AT), I
likewise think it is great.

Regarding indemnification, I think Allen addresses this well. Limiting
indemnification to the things E&IT is clearly responsible for (and not for
things it isn't) would satisfy the issue for me.


Regards,

Peter Korn
Accessibility Architect,
Sun Microsystems, Inc.



Folks:


I feel like we are battling over individual clauses that have a common
underlying problem, and that rather than address the underlying problem, we
are spending enormous amounts of time on the individual issues it creates.
I propose we step up, and examine the cause head-on. The problem, posed as
a question, is this: should Section 508 require that an E&IT product
interoperate with available assistive technology? As discussed yesterday,
we may not be able to resolve this problem ourselves in the next three weeks
and so may have to forward the differing positions to the Access Board
unresolved. In an effort to get a start on that "Note", here are my
thoughts:


I believe the viewpoints of each side are as follows (correct me if I'm
wrong, or stakeholders from each can modify):


1. E&IT Industry: "We can't be responsible for what AT does or doesn't
do, since it is largely outside our control. We can agree to expose
information technically that AT can use, but can't guarantee that AT
actually exists that makes use of it"


2. Consumers & Advocates: "Simply technically exposing the information
is not enough, if a person with a disability still can't use it. If an
E&IT product doesn't provide access in and of itself and AT doesn't exist
that is compatible with it, then it will not be useable by many people with
disabilities and therefore should not be purchased by the Federal
Government."


3. Assistive Technology Industry: "We require cooperation from our E&IT
industry counterparts to ensure actual interoperability exists between their
products and our assistive technology products, and frown on anything which
would lower incentive to do that. We also can't be expected to develop
assistive technology for platforms or products for which we have little or
no potential market."


A Fourth Entity. There is a fourth entity in the equation: the
purchaser (ie. the government). If the government mandates interoperability
between E&IT and AT, then it should be prepared to at least partially fund
that mandate. This would break the paradox outlined by the three positions
above.


In an ideal world, it would go something like this: "We, the Federal
Government, wish to purchase the brand new XYZ technology from E&IT, and
recognize that no AT exists for it yet. So, as part of our procurement, we
will help to fund the work necessary for interoperability between XYZ and
commercially-available AT. Further, we will make best efforts to hire
people with disabilities, thus creating a market for the newly-developed
assistive technology, while at the same time lowering social assistance
costs by helping those employees with disabilities become independent and
self-sustaining".


Separately, government procurement officials should accept the liability
mandated by Section 508, and not require indemnity clauses from industry.
This ensures the responsibility of Section 508 remains where the lawmakers
intended it to be: on the government.


-----------------------------


Specifically related to the government's responsibilities in 508, I
propose we make the following recommendations as an adjunct to our proposed
508 draft:


1. The government establish a mechanism to help fund interoperability
development. (This could be a new category within the SBIR program - Small
Business Innovation Research, that is already well-funded). AT companies
would apply for these grants in conjunction with E&IT partners to fund
access development for new technologies.


2. Government procurement agencies should not be allowed to require
indemnification clauses in procurement contracts that shifts the liability
of accessibility from the Federal Department to industry.


3. The government establish incentive programs for hiring people with
disabilities, with a special emphasis placed on those that require
specialized access technology.




-Randy
ATIA








----------------------------------------------------------------------------

• Next message in Thread: None
• Previous message in Thread: Peter Korn: "Re: The cause vs. the symptom"