[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: EITAAC - Families Subcommittee
Roger, Note my related response to Steve Jacobs. Current procurement
practice is to distinguish commodities from services from systems from
integration. These scenarios can be extremely complicated. Example: An
Agency buys a new set of computers (from Compaq) to load data into an
existing Legacy system (could be Compaq/DEC, or IBM, or Amdahl), which is
serviced by a Small-Disadvantaged business (literally hundreds of those),
and manipulates the data using a mix of Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS)
software (MicroSoft et.al.) plus custom software written by specialized
engineering firms (Raytheon or Lockheed Martin or EDS). The responsibility
for integrating all of this is contracted to the System Integrator (the
"Prime Contractor"), who may or/may not be supplying any of the
aforementioned pieces. These market relationships already exist, and
different companies have selected the role or roles that they would choose
to play, so that very few companies encompass all possible families. Even in
the cases where one company (e.g., IBM or Compaq) has the capability to do
the majority of the job, the Government has been very reluctant to vest that
much authority in one supplier. Even where this is being done, in "seat
management" or "outsourcing" contracts, there are still multiple suppliers
and participants in the program, each of whom needs to be held accountable
for accessibility in their particular effort. Because each of these
separate functions, or Families, makes its own contribution to the end
result, and likewise has its own responsibilities for assuring
accessibility, each should be distinguished in the standard. Thanks, Ron
Smith
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Wellman [SMTP:rwellman@easter-seals.org]
> Sent: Monday, October 19, 1998 4:04 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: RE: EITAAC - Families Subcommittee
>
> 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
>
>