Thread Subject: The cause vs. the symptom

Return to this mailing list's archives

From: Randy Marsden
Date: Wed, Mar 12 2008 10:25 AM
Subject: The cause vs. the symptom

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

From: Hoffman, Allen
Date: Wed, Mar 12 2008 12:10 PM
Subject: Re: The cause vs. the symptom

First, thanks Randy for this statement of positions, but as my comments
will show below, some of this can be more precise and can include who
the proponent is. Some is probably out of scope for our committee work,
and some I have no problem with.


My comments in line prefaced with AH:



Allen Hoffman -- = EMAIL ADDRESS REMOVED = ; v: 202-447-0303

From: Peter Korn
Date: Wed, Mar 12 2008 9:55 PM
Subject: Re: The cause vs. the symptom

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
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>

From: Peter Korn
Date: Tue, Mar 18 2008 11:05 AM
Subject: Re: 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>

From: Diane Golden
Date: Tue, Mar 18 2008 4:10 PM
Subject: Re: The cause vs. the symptom

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








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