Re: EITAAC - Families Subcommittee

[Bill Sahlberg <bsahlberg@futureforms.com>]

Dear Jim,
I have read the comments regarding integration with interest. And I am not sure
that I would agree that "systematic incompatibility..." is outside of the
committee's charter. If this is true, then what value do we bring to assisting
in developing standards for procurement for accessibility?
For instance, I agree that we should not specify that a computer system have a
specific speech program pre-built into its components, so that every user can
take advantage of a specific unit.
But I would suggest that we have a responsibility to ensure that "hooks" be in
place for a computer system, or a software program that follows a specific
protocol that will allow a plugin, or adaptive technology to connect fairly
seamlessly with other parts of the computer system.
Our ultimate goal is to offer a set of rules that, if followed, will let every
user have an equal chance to perform the same task. Isn't it?

Regards,

Bill Sahlberg
FutureForms
Division Manager

James Thatcher wrote:

> <CL> systemic incompatibility of both off-the-shelf
> and assistive software and peripherals <CL>
>
> This is a problem that is independent of accessibility.
> It's a problem we all confront and decry. It is not  in
> the committee's charter to address.
>
> Jim Thatcher
> IBM Special Needs Systems
> www.ibm.com/sns
> (512)838-0432
>
> eitaac@trace.wisc.edu on 10/19/98 12:32:31 PM
> Please respond to eitaac@trace.wisc.edu
> To: eitaac@trace.wisc.edu
> cc:
> Subject: RE: EITAAC - Families Subcommittee
>
> Response to Bill Paul and question for Dave Bolnick:
>
> To Bill: As an integrator of computer assistive technology from 1990
> through 1996 I heartily concur with your comments about the systemic
> incompatibility of both off-the-shelf and assistive software and
> peripherals.  Even more frustrating is when two or more "identical" systems
> behave in oddly different ways.  The sad fact  is that no one, not even the
> esteemed National Software Testing Laboratories (NSTL), could test every
> component with every other component on the market.  They probably wouldn't
> even accept the contract to try.  What's the solution?  Is it industry-wide
> adoption of and strict adherence to one set of technical standards?
> Maybe... but I suspect the Washington Redskins will win a football game
> before that ever happens.
>
> For Dave:  By "proof-of-concept" verbiage, do you mean statements to the
> effect that: "Tendered equipment must work with such-and-such installed
> base of equipment or we can demand replacement or other fixes."?
>
> Regards,
> Chuck Letourneau
>
> At 19/10/98 11:51 AM , you wrote:
> >This is important for the entire EITAAC to understand and supports
> >proof-of-concept verbiage in government contracts (I believe the SSA
> >contract included one). Whether this can be a 508 requirement is beyond me.
> >Maybe the DOJ representative (Mary Lou Mobley) can comment here.
> >
>
> ----
> Starling Access Services
>  "Access A World Of Possibility"
>   e-mail: info@starlingweb.com
>    URL: http://www.starlingweb.com
>     Phone: 613-820-2272  FAX: 613-820-6983