RE: EITAAC - Families Subcommittee

[Roger Wellman <rwellman@easter-seals.org>]

This may be an over simplification of the problem but might it be an option
(as in the airplane metaphor) to simply give a set of functional
requirements needed to potential suppliers.  If a "system" were required
then the vendor would need to assemble the parts and stand behind the
utility of the system not the individual parts. I am sure part of the
challenge rests in the numbers and that the number of specific specialized
systems required by the government may not be enough to motivate a vendor to
get involved?  If however the vendor could charge more for low volume
systems or could get a piece of "other" system business needs of the
government would this be an option?  If there were enough incentive to the
vendor would it not be possible for that vendor to invest in the actual
development of specialized systems that work well?

Roger Wellman
Vice President,
Chief Information Officer
Easter Seals national headquarters

******As of September 1st my email address is changing to
rwellman@easter-seals.org . Please mark this down and make any appropriate
changes in your address book.******




		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Bill Sahlberg [mailto:bsahlberg@futureforms.com]
		Sent:	Monday, October 19, 1998 12:28 PM
		To:	Multiple recipients of list
		Subject:	Re: EITAAC - Families Subcommittee

		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