[Accessibility] Draft minutes Accessibility Working Group Meeting April 21, 2004

John Goldthwaite john.goldthwaite at catea.org
Wed Apr 21 12:20:02 PDT 2004

Accessibility Working Group Meeting April 21, 2004

Doug Beattie
John Goldthwaite
Bill Haneman
Randy Horwitz
Janina Sajka
Gunnar Schmidt
Matthew Wilcox

Minutes for April 7 approved as amended.
Greg Vanderheiden sent email saying that the open license is being worked on
by the University of Wisconsin IP people.  Its not forgotten, just taking a
Need to find statistics on open source usage in the research community.
Bill- spend a while with Google to see what quotes are out there:
Linux+research+NSF , use of free software in university research
environment.  Fish for people’s citations of trumpeting by companies of
their Linux products.  We want to emphasize how open systems facilitate
research.  We’re interested in individual researchers that are building
software that run on the local system.  Improving access to education,
access to research – we want to make the point that Linux and free software
have a large penetration in the academic world than in the corporate.
Janina- that should be something a professional librarian should be able to
ferret out.
Bill- are arguments aren’t as strong on the supercomputing side
Janina- we’re focused on the UI and people who need the UI to behave
differently. I have done some tweaking on the proposal and entered Sharon’s
re-write of the first paragraph.  I think its about done, lets look at it
and discuss it on the list.  I just sent them out as

Doug- funds requested 
Janina- we need to add figures for sign language interpreters.  Do we want
to support travel and logging for 12-18 out of 30.  Can most of us get
funding to go?  Should it be more like 18-22.
Doug- many companies have travel restriction on.  Sun and IBM for example.
We probably need to cover most of us.
Randy- if its in January that will help us since it’s the start of our
fiscal year.
Matthew- ours goes on a quarterly basis.
Doug- we also talked about conference calling, we need to add that to the
Janina- I’ll change it to 16-22 people needing support.  NSF wants to know
what companies are going to put toward the meeting.
Randy- I need to talk to Allen about that this week.  I can’t commit until I
talk to him.
Janina- I’m sure Rich will support this so it should help.  I understand
this has been tough times in IT but having some support from companies will
be a consideration for NSF.
Randy- it’s a good time to talk about it since budgets are in for the year.
Janina- I’ll put these new numbers in and put it out again.  I’ll be talking
to Sandy Friday and we can work on these items for interpreters.  I’d like
to spend the rest of the time on section 3.  Doug reads section;;  How
meeting will contribute to scientific
Recruitment of speakers, including under represented groups in STEM.  By
invitation only but advertise for people to tell us why they should be

Janina- we fleshed out the last one.  How does this conference move science
forward?  My best cut is that we take away the need to revisit accessibility
concerns for a lot of software.  We’ll
Doug- I attended a DoD meeting where they say we need interoperability.  The
only way to do it was to have standards. A lot of agencies would like to buy
products that are interoperable.  What can
Janina- interoperability is a big concern in the W3C – to send things to
different modalities, not just a monitor and mouse.
Doug- Companies don’t want to spend money on development unless they are
sure that its what.
Janina- it removes questions about how to provide access and it facilitates
Bill- we help research by reducing the need to reinvent the wheel, by making
it easier for universities to reuse each other’s research.  In
accessibility, we’ll be providing a common platform, it will make it easier
for software to be commercialized. Its easier to make a commercial product
an open system and not a proprietary system.  And it also makes it easier
for people with disabilities to contribute to research.
Randy-  good points

Bill- the two points: its easier for people with disabilities to participate
in scientific efforts and its easier for developers of assistive technology
to create their products.
Janina- anything to add to the notes that follow “how we will recruit”?  Do
enough of you have the material to review?
Randy- I just received document 1.
Janina- Doc 1 has Sharon’s rewrite plus a few tweaks.
Bill- I’m still a little concerned about the second sentence.
Janina- lets take a look at it.
Bill- I’d talk about changing the beneficiaries- move the end users to the
top.  We hope that the end result.  If the primary beneficiary is industry,
why does NSF need to fund it?
Janina- we aught to change beneficiaries to stakeholders.  Lets look at the
first paragraph.
Bill- do we wish to be a working group or a workgroup?
Janina- it’s a FSG style thing.  When we were doing the charter last year,
we changed everything to workgroup to match the FSG stylesheet, not my style

Randy- it says 2004 early 2005, we’ve agreed on early 2005, lets say that.
Bill- my original thought was to remove the sentence.  “Engineering agenda”
sounds weak, I’m not sure they’ll know what we mean.
Janina- we had a couple of alternatives in last week’s minutes.
Bill- is “industry experts” the right phrase?
Randy- if its industry experts, they may wonder why we’re inviting all these
other people.

Bill- we say agree on engineering work
Janina- Break that out and it would be better

John Goldthwaite
Center for Assistive Technology and Environmental Access, Georgia Tech
john.goldthwaite at catea.org

More information about the Accessibility mailing list