[Accessibility] Final NSF Documents

Janina Sajka janina at rednote.net
Fri May 28 13:12:00 PDT 2004

I submitted the following on our behalf today. I have also asked to be advised of their receipt so we can avoid any mishap such as befell our first, informal submission.

				Janina Sajka, Director
				Technology Research and Development
				Governmental Relations Group
				American Foundation for the Blind (AFB)

		Chair, Accessibility Workgroup
	Free Standards Group (FSG)

Email: janina at afb.net		Phone: (202) 408-8175
-------------- next part --------------

Thank you for the opportunity to submit the attached proposal to the
National Science Foundation. Over the past decade, the open source
computing environment has become a favorite platform for researchers,
academics, and ordinary users the world over. The ability to share code has
driven innovation and created a compelling computing environment for
numerous projects. Increasingly, persons with disabilities are turning to
Linux and other open source environments to prototype and develop consumer
driven solutions to common, and not so common, computing challenges.
Indeed, industry and business are increasingly adopting open environments
for various computing tasks, and technology providers are developing
solutions to serve these growing needs through packaged distributions and
technical service plans.

The Free Standards Group is an outgrowth of the success of Linux. We were
formed to resolve classic and historical disonances in common practice on
free and open platforms. FSG standards are widely regarded in the industry
and address issues from file hierarchy to printing and support for
internationalization. In the past year FSG has asked leaders in the
accessibility community to form a Accessibility Workgroup to define
standards and best practices guidance to the wider open source community
for supporting the interface needs of persons with disabilities.  This work
has begun and is proceeding, but it has also become clear that it would
proceed more quickly and with greater precision if an invitational
international conference of experts could be convened to define a research
and engineering road map to support accessibility comprehensively on open
platforms. Convening this conference is the proposal herewith attached. We
believe this is the best available mechanism to define the appropriate
agenda, engage the best participants, and garner the widest possible
acceptance for supporting a fully inclusive environment in open source

We look forward to convening a fruitful conference with NSF's assistance in
the secure knowledge that the benefits will acrue to the wider community
long after the conference itself  has adjourned. We will be happy to
amplify and further document our proposals as you may need.

Thank you again for this opportunity. We look forward to hearing from you
on this proposal soon.

-------------- next part --------------

Executive Summary

The Free Standards Group (FSG), Accessibility Workgroup, wishes to convene
a face-to-face  meeting in early 2005. At this meeting, invited experts
will have in-depth face-to-face  discussions to further ongoing
standardization efforts in support of comprehensive access to  information
and accessible user interfaces for persons with disabilities. Our focus is
on  computing platforms that adopt free and open standards, such as Linux,
BSD, AIX, MacOSX,  and Solaris. We are requesting funding from the National
Science Foundation (NSF) in support  of this meeting.

A face-to-face conference is needed for our continued work, and is the most
appropriate  mechanism to:

                    ???  Finalize proposals for industry wide accessibility
           standards where FSG  work has  already begun;"

                    ???  Develop a Road Map for additional open source
           technologies and standards to support comprehensive
           accessibility on open platforms;

                    ???  Reach broad stakeholder consensus on a common layer
           of accessibility support  that can be deployed and maintained on
           multiple platforms and can serve as the  basis for future
           collaborative research to provide multiple, cost effective,
           interoperable, heterogenous and accessible products.

Achieving standards to support comprehensive accessibility in the free and
open source  environment will require participation among developer
communities, marketers of free and open  source technologies, academic and
corporate researchers, and user communities. The very  diverse and
unstructured nature of these groups has tended to prevent adequate contact
and  communication among them so that excellent accessibility for some
users exists in certain  contexts, while other contexts remain unaddressed
and inaccessible. The objectives of our  international conference,
therefore, are:

                    ???  Achieve consensus on those standards which can be
           adopted to support  accessibility in the near term;

                    ???  Agree on engineering research which must yet be
           performed in order to support all  persons with disabilities;

                    ???  Identify areas where further targeted research is
           required before  engineering  solutions can be put forward;

                    ???  Enhance and extend existing relationships, and
           establish additional structured  mechanisms to accomplish these

We plan to invite approximately 40 individuals from industry, developer
communities, research and educational institutions, and persons with
disabilities. We need to ensure broad participation across all sectors of
these groups worldwide, and we need, particularly, to engage participants
who would otherwise not become involved in this process.

Why We Need Such A Conference

The diverse nature of the technology that constitutes today's open platform
also makes it very  difficult to achieve a comprehensive and cohesive layer
of accessibility support. The  heterogeneous nature of toolkits, component
inter process communication models, libraries, and  applications on free
and open source platforms has made the development of robust and effective
assistive technologies difficult, at best. Yet, the open platform is an
important environment for  individual and institutional users alike, and
especially for the research community. Without  consensus among
stakeholders, and without standards and binary interface components:

                    ???  Users with various disabilities can not effectively
           use these systems--or major portions of these systems.

                    ???  Systems do not meet legal requirements for
           accessibility (which hampers marketing of free standards based

                    ???  Developers cannot consistently write accessible

                    ???  Comprehensive and consistent platform services that
           support accessibility do not exist.

                    ???  Assistive technology developers cannot easily create
           assistive technologies for free standards platforms.

                    ???  The lack of standardization prevents leveraging
           existing work, sharing of expertise, and reduces the value of
           individual contributions.

Outcomes and Benefits

The beneficiaries of the accessibility standardization activity which will
be accelerated by the  meeting we are proposing are numerous, cutting
across all sectors engaged with either providing  or using technology and

                    ???  Persons with disabilities worldwide. They are the
           reason for the research and engineering work we will organize
           and the FSG standards which will result from it.

                    ???  Researchers who are themselves persons with
           disabilities will be empowered to focus on research questions
           rather than on making their computing environment accessible to

                    ???  Students who are themselves persons with
           disabilities will find it easier to participate in science and
           science education  because Linux and open platforms are widely
           used in research and education.

                    ???  Researchers who must now constantly address the
           basics of accessibility support rather than creative and
           innovative approaches to more complex questions will be relieved
           from the need to "reinvent the wheel" in order to support

                    ???  Both individual consumers and institutional ones
           such as governmental agencies and educational institutions, many
           of which are now legally required to support accessibility.

                    ???  Assistive technology developers will find it easier
           to create more useful technologies than those available today.
           They will be able to deploy those assistive technologies on a
           wider range of computing platforms thanks to these standards.
           Furthermore, because the accessibility standards being developed
           are explicitly supported within the platform, AT vendors will no
           longer need to reverse engineer operating environments and
           applications in order to implement their functionality. Instead
           development time will be freed for the much more important task
           of enhancing the user experience.

                    ???  Implementations of free standards such as GNOME,
           KDE, and GNU software

                    ???  Vendors of Unix and Linux such as IBM Corporation,
           Novell Corporation, Red Hat Inc., Sun Microsystems, and United
           Linux, among others.

                    ???  Vendors of hand-held devices, consumer and business
           products using embedded technologies, as well as those providing
           large industrial systems such as Hewlett-Packard Corporation and
           IBM Corporation, among others;

It is also important to note that these benefits will be available world-
wide in developing and  developed nations alike because neither cost nor
access to the technology itself will ever be a  barrier to anyone's
participation, either as an end user or as a technical contributor. This is
a  fundamental benefit of open source technology. It explains why research
institutions tend to  prefer open platforms for their activities. By
including accessibility support through a common  layer that all platforms
can adopt, persons with disabilities will be empowered to participate at
any level in technology's benefits throughout their professional careers
and personal lives.

Clearly, these goals cannot be achieved in a single meeting. Our work will
not be finished when  we conference adjourns. However, without a face to
face meeting, accessibility work on open  platforms will remain a scattered
enterprise without a cohesive vision that can be broadly  adopted. Only a
dedicated face to face event bringing together an appropriate range of
knowledgeable stakeholders can reach the needed consensus on standards and
identify  remaining issues. We need to forge the broad consensus only a
dedicated conference can achieve  in order to accelerate accessibility
support toward a comprehensive solution.

There has not yet been a conference devoted to the subject of defining
comprehensive  accessibility support on open platforms. There have been
related sessions at other conferences.  Several hour-long and day-long
sessions addressing this and related topics have been held at  conferences
which tend to draw professionals working on computer and information
systems  accessibility such as the annual Technology and Persons with
Disabilities Conference in Los  Angeles (CSUN). A Linux Accessibility
conference accompanied CSUN in 2002 and 2003 (see

Sun Microsystems has sponsored daylong sessions on aspects of their work,
and that of others in  the GNOME community, at recent CSUN conferences, at
the Closing the Gap Conference, and  the ATIA Conference. Sun has also
presented on this topic at several European conferences of  GNOME and KDE
developers, most notably the annual Guadec conference

Accessibility has also been discussed at recent KDE developer meetings and
work on supporting  accessibility in QT 4 is progressing. QT 4 will be
released later in 2004, and may be previewed at  the KDE Developer
Conference in Germany this coming August (see http://accessibility.kde.org
and http://events.kde.org/info/conference2004/overview_program.php).

The Accessibility Workgroup of the FSG has been meeting weekly since
February 2003 by  teleconference. Several members of this Workgroup also
met in an extended working session  during CSUN 2003.

The complex nature of the issues to be understood, the need for a
comprehensive consensus plan  to address accessibility on Linux, BSD,
Solaris, Aix (and other platforms implementing free and  open source
technologies) however, requires a meeting apart from other issues where
knowledgeable stakeholders can  agree on what can be standardized today and
on what work yet  needs to be done.

There are already several innovative assistive technologies that are taking
advantage of  components of this emerging standard which are already
available. These serve to illustrate the  benefits which can reasonably be
expected to accrue from an international conference addressing
accessibility on open platforms:

GOK, the dynamic GNOME On-Screen Keyboard uses AT-SPI and XKB functionality
to  provide a set of access features that go far beyond any other on-screen
keyboard for any other  computer platform available today at any price.
Already included as a standard component in the  GNOME 2.6 desktop
environment, GOK is providing users of single switch and head-mouse
interface devices dramatically quicker performance (easily 5 times faster
control of dialog boxes,  web browsing, text editing, and numerous other

Dasher is an innovative and cross platform text entry application optimized
for eye-gaze and  head tracker systems from the University of Cambridge.
Now also shipping with the GNOME 2.6 desktop (and therefore with
distributions that include GNOME 2.6) the most recent releases  of Dasher
utilize AT-SPI to provide control of the desktop for these users "out of
the box." It is  noteworthy that Dasher is a product of University
research. It serves as an excellent example of  technology transfer made
possible in great part by the use of open standards and open source

Gnopernicus is a screen reader/magnifier with Braille support in
development for users with  visual impairments that is part of the GNOME
2.6 desktop. Gnopernicus utilizes the AT-SPI  functionality exclusively for
obtaining all of the information required for screen reading and
magnification, and therefore doesn't need to build and maintain and Off-
Screen-Model or  otherwise patch the video drivers or operating system.

In addition, there are several research projects that are using AT-SPI.

Orca is a research project exploring the use of scripting in Python to
customize the screen  reading experience for specific applications and
specific tasks, thereby increasing the efficiency  of the user experience
and lowering the barrier to entry for developers wanting to contribute to
accessibility enhancements.  Also, several companies are exploring the use
of AT-SPI for  automated software testing, leveraging the detailed
information exposed for all user interface  elements to programmatically
validate aspects of the graphical user interface.

Conference Planning and Organization

The Archimedes Project at the University of Hawaii, Honolulu, has extended
an invitation to  FSG to host our meeting. It is our strong desire to
schedule this conference expeditiously. We  now contemplate holding the
conference during the week of January 24, 2005 in Honolulu, HI, at  the
Honolulu Community College and University of Hawaii.

Participation in this conference will be by invitation. We will invite
technically conversant  participants from industry, research institutions,
consumer organizations, and professional  associations in an effort to
bring sufficient representation to achieve a consensus that can both  meet
the need and be implemented within shipping products. We will also invite
interested  individuals to request an invitation by announcing this
conference on targeted email lists and at  our web site,

Chair and Organizing Committee

The conference will be chaired by Ms. Janina Sajka, Director, Technology
Research &  Development, American Foundation for the Blind (AFB). Ms. Sajka
also chairs the Accessibility  Workgroup in the Free Standards Group.
Breakout sessions will be conducted by the team lead  for each project
area. We will hold plenary sessions as well as break-out sessions for teams
 focusing on particular areas.

Additional FSG members organizing this conference include:

Dr. Gregg Vanderheiden
Director, Trace Center
University of Wisconsin
GV at trace.wisc.edu

William La Plant
(U.S. Census (retired))
blaplant at computer.org

Bill Haneman
GNOME Board of Directors; GNOME Accessibility Project; Sun Microsystems
bill.haneman at sun.com

Peter  Korn
GNOME Accessibility Project; Sun Microsystems Corporation
peter.korn at sun.com

Earl Johnson
Sun Microsystems Corporation
earl.johnson at sun.com

Dr. T.V. Raman
tvraman at us.ibm.com
Sharon Snider
snidersd at us.ibm.com
Randall Horwitz
rhorwitz at us.ibm.com
Allen Wilson
wilsona at us.ibm.com
IBM Corporation

John Goldthwaite
Senior Research Scientist
Center for Assistive Technology & Environmental Access
Georgia Institute of Technology
john.goldthwaite at arch.gatech.edu

Mario Lang Maintainer of Brltty & Debian Accessibility
mlang at debian.org

Gunnar Schmidt
KDE Accessibility Project
gunnar at schmi-dt.de

Kirk Reiser
The Computer Braille Facility
University of Western Ontario
kirk at braille.uwo.ca

Deedra M. Waters
Gentoo Accessibility Project; Gentoo board of Trustees; Gentoo Developer
dmwaters at gentoo.org

Dr. Neil G. Scott
Director, Archimedes Hawaii Project
University of Hawaii
ngscott at hawaii.edu

Recruiting Participants

We will rely foremost on the extensive contacts of our Organizing Committee
to identify, and  personally invite, an appropriate representatives of
stakeholder communities. These invitations  will be based on the
Committee's analysis of what stakeholder interests exists, and what
expertise  we need from stakeholder representatives. Clearly, the primary
stakeholder interest is that of  various communities of persons with
disabilities, and the Committee's widely recognized  expertise will be
tapped to invite the best and brightest representatives from these
communities.  Conference participation will be by invitation only, and all
participants will be asked to make a  statement regarding their interest
and regarding how they believe they can contribute.

We will also prepare a web page at the Accessibility Workgroup's web site
regarding this  conference, inviting anyone to submit who would like to be
invited to submit the same statement  to the Committee for its
consideration. We will further announce this conference on various
targeted email lists.

Conference Agenda

Since the purpose of our conference is the development of an engineering
agenda that can result  in standards to support accessibility, our
organization will be fairly simple. We will develop a  specific agenda of
issues and questions to be addressed in advance of the conference. The
agenda  will be published at the Accessibility Workgroup's web site at

The conference agenda will include work on FSG's current accessibility
standardization efforts  and on developing a Road Map, with timelines and
deliverables, which can point the way to a  comprehensive solution that is
implementable incrementally. Specific topics which must be  addressed and
will be discussed at this conference include:

Part A: Current Tasks

1.) AT-SPI
The Assistive Technology Service Provider Interface (AT-SPI) was developed
for the GNOME2  desktop and its approach to providing accessibility is in
the process of being adopted by KDE.

AT-SPI is toolkit-neutral. It is already compatible with and supported by
GTK+2, Java/Swing,  the Mozilla suite, and StarOffice/OpenOffice. Support
via reuse of the related ATK interface in  version 4 of the Qt toolkit (on
which KDE is based) has been announced by Trolltech.

AT-SPI enables assistive technology tools, e.g. screen readers, magnifiers,
and even scripting  interfaces to query and interact with graphical user
interface (GUI) controls. As such it facilitates  access for individuals
who cannot use the standard GUI. It enables developers (or a third party)
to  build applications that are, or can be made accessible.

Yet, adopting the AT-SPI as a standard that platforms and products can
certify against is a  somewhat different approach for many in the open
standards community. So, while the  technology approach may be sound, it is
nevertheless necessary to obtain stakeholder consensus  for AT-SPI to be
adopted  industry-wide as a standard. It will also be necessary to devise
and  agree on certification procedures.

2.) AT Device Shared I/O

AT device shared I/O would make it possible for devices that are commonly
used by persons  with disabilities to operate smoothly with several client
applications which a user may have open.  Not only does the system as a
whole need to provide appropriate behavior to an application  which
currently has focus, it should facilitate programmatically determined
output in an appropriate manner as well for applications  that may not have
focus but have been set to monitor  and report on conditions.

Because applications which support accessibility have historically been
developed by isolated  communities, they do not necessarily operate without
impinging upon one another today. In some  circumstances, for example, it
is necessary to support simultaneous access for different client
applications. For example, allowing a software-based speech synthesizer to
speak while a  multi-media stream is playing, rather than queuing its
messages to play after the stream  concludes. In addition, it may also be
necessary to have messages queue or suppress until a  particular window or
console has focus. Both of these behaviors must be available to the end

This activity supports a seamless user experience from bootup, in the
console and desktop  environments, and through shutdown.

We will support/coordinate the development of libraries that allow client
applications to share  these I/O devices. Shared access to accessibility
related devices, such as Braille displays, reduces  the cost of ownership
and improves the user experience. These libraries should offer a generic
high-level abstraction of the underlying device to allow client
applications, to use those libraries  independent of the actual hardware in
use. This, in turn, simplifies the development of  accessibility related
software and helps drive the cost of assistive technology down.
3.) Keyboard Accessibility

Persons unable to use a keyboard and mouse sometimes use alternative
devices. However, many  users can be accommodated programmatically through
software that causes a standard keyboard to  behave differently. Many of
these features and behaviors have long been available in the XKB
specification. Yet some of these features are today in danger of being
removed from XKB  because its maintainers are no longer aware of how
critical they are to certain users. We will  protect and extend these
important technologies by engaging all of the stakeholders in the  creation
of an internationally acknowledged standard against which platforms and
products can  certify.

"Sticky Keys" is one such keyboard accessibility feature provided in the
XKB specification. It  supports users who cannot press key combinations.
For example, the user is unable to press the  Ctrl-Alt-TAB keys
simultaneously, Sticky keys allows them to achieve the same result by
pressing the keys sequentially.

Individuals with mobility impairments will benefit by having such features
built-in and available  through standard activation strategies, such as
tapping the Shift key five times to activate Sticky  Keys. The routines
provided by the API will also benefit assistive technologies such as on
screen  keyboard and screen reader applications.

Part B: Future Activities

The FSG Accessibility Workgroup has named several areas which it believes
require additional  engineering development and standardization. While we
do not believe this list is exhaustive, we  do believe it can serve to
start the all important discussions on creating a Road Map for
comprehensive accessibility on open platforms. Thus, the Road Map produced
by the conference  we are proposing may include all or some of the
following activities:

1.) Magnification

One critical area requiring engineering and standardization is support for
magnification in  Xwindows applications. Service API support for
magnification should make it possible to  provide sophisticated
magnification of one or more portions of the video display screen for users
 who require, a larger or different font, and alternate foreground or
background color. In addition,  magnification of icons and text should be
able to achieve a wide range of magnification ratios.  Many users with
visual disabilities need 3X, 4x, etc. magnification, while other users can
benefit  from ratios as small as 1.2X magnification. Currently it is not
possible to achieve required  magnification functionality on X platforms
without requiring high-end video hardware with  multiple frame buffering.
This should not be a requirement. Also, the user should be able to
maintain magnification while applications are writing to the screen.

Historically the networked nature of the X technology has not made it
possible (nor desirable) for  AT to replace device drivers or write
directly to video hardware. Creating this standard will  require
significant cooperation with X, GNOME, and KDE developers. There are
currently  projects under development, among some vendors, that can provide
reference implementations.

2.) Text To Speech

Interfaces based on synthesized text to speech (TTS) technology have proven
a successful and  powerful accommodation for users with various
disabilities, including persons who are blind or  who have learning
disabilities. A standard API supporting numerous voices in numerous
languages, and supporting the ability to smoothly and quickly switch among
different languages,  yet providing a single, consistent interface to
applications does not exist today. Such an API is  needed if conversational
foreign language education is one day to be made available. People with
disabilities will also benefit by a larger availability of language choices
in spoken interfaces,  many that may not be supported by assistive
technologies today. Providing a robust, reliable TTS  interface supporting
multiple voices will also make it possible to facilitate the vast
populations  around the globe who otherwise, might not soon participate in
a technology based economy.

3.) Alternative Interface Access Protocol

The Alternative Interface Access Protocol (AIAP) is being developed by a
technical committee  of the InterNational Committee for Information
Technology Standards (INCITS) (see  www.v2access.org). The AIAP provides
for a Universal Remote Console (URC) "that allows  users to control a mass-
market device/service (target). The target projects a  presentation-
independent version of its user interface (UI) which is rendered as a
concrete user  interface by the URC and may be visual, speech-based,
braille-based, or in some other form. This activity dovetails with current
emphasis within the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) on the  development of
device independent, multi-modal XML markup technologies. Incorporating
these  developments into a common accessibility support layer on open
platforms can facilitate  accessibility for a host of common devices from
public access terminals to the full range of  consumer devices such as
thermostats, kitchen appliances, laundry facilities, and home security  and
entertainment systems. Without support for this (or a similar) universal
remote console  (URC)technology in SDKs, public access and consumer
technologies are likely to become even  less accessible to an ever wider
range of users than they are today. With it, ever more research and
educational opportunities can be made accessible where they are not
accessible today.

4.) Text-only accessible booting

It should be possible for any user who is a person with a disability to
access any user supported  interface during the boot process, including the
selection of the kernel to boot, rescue modes,  interactive device loading,
etc. This will require coordination with kernel and boot loader
development teams to facilitate the interfacing of assistive technologies
at any point during the  boot process where user access is customarily
supported. This will particularly benefit those  users with disabilities
who are technology professionals or scientific researchers and need, or
desire, to participate directly in the development and testing of products.

5.) Accessible Feature Configuration

Users who are persons with disabilities should have accessible applications
and tools to assist  them with configuring their system user interfaces to
best advantage. Quite often the user is left  trying to configure their own
system, because technical support staff does not have sufficient  knowledge
about the available configuration options. However, most of the information
these  users need can be documented and exposed in a systematic manner. In
particular, we are  concerned to devise technologies which facilitate rapid
configuration and adaptation as users  move from one device to another, or
as a user's needs change during the day.
-------------- next part --------------

|[pic]                                                 |FOR NSF USE ONLY              |
|SUMMARY PROPOSAL BUDGET                               |                              |
|ORGANIZATION                                          |PROPOSAL    |DURATION        |
|Free Standards Group Accessibility Workgroup          |NO.         |(MONTHS)        |
|                                                      |            |Proposed |Grante|
|                                                      |            |         |d     |
|PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR/PROJECT DIRECTOR               |AWARD NO.   |         |      |
|Janina Sajka                                          |            |         |      |
|A.  SENIOR PERSONNEL: PI/PD, Co-PIs, Faculty and  |NSF-Funded    |Funds    |Funds   |
|Other Senior Associates                           |              |         |        |
|      List each separately with name and title.   |Person-months |Requested|Granted |
|(A.7. Show  number in brackets)                   |              |By       |by NSF  |
|                                                  |CAL|ACAD|SUMR |Proposer |(If     |
|                                                  |   |    |     |         |Differen|
|                                                  |   |    |     |         |t)      |
|   1. Janina Saika                                |???|???|???|$0       |$??????|
|                                                  |???      |         |
|   2. ???????????????                             |???|???|???|         |        |
|                                                  |???      |?????????|??????|
|                                                  |   |    |     |??????   |
|   3. ???????????????                             |???|???|???|         |        |
|                                                  |???      |?????????|??????|
|                                                  |   |    |     |??????    |
|   4. ???????????????                             |???|???|???|         |        |
|                                                  |???      |?????????|??????|
|                                                  |   |    |     |??????    |
|   5. ???????????????                             |???|???|???|         |        |
|                                                  |???      |?????????|??????|
|                                                  |   |    |     |??????    |
|   6.  (?????????) OTHERS (LIST INDIVIDUALLY ON   |???|???|???|         |        |
|BUDGET EXPLANATION PAGE)                          |???      |?????????|??????|
|                                                  |   |    |     |??????    |
|   7.  (?????????) TOTAL SENIOR PERSONNEL (1-6)   |???|???|???|         |        |
|                                                  |???      |?????????|??????|
|                                                  |   |    |     |??????    |
|B.  OTHER PERSONNEL (SHOW NUMBERS IN BRACKETS)    |                                  |
|   1.  (?????????) POSTDOCTORAL ASSOCIATES        |???|???|???|         |        |
|                                                  |???      |?????????|??????|
|                                                  |   |    |     |??????    |
|   2.  (?????????) OTHER PROFESSIONALS            |???|???|???|         |        |
|(TECHNICIAN, PROGRAMMER, ETC.)                    |???      |?????????|??????|
|                                                  |   |    |     |??????    |
|   3.  (?????????) GRADUATE STUDENTS              |   |          |         |        |
|                                                  |   |          |?????????|??????|
|                                                  |   |          |??????    |
|   4.  (?????????) UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS         |   |          |         |        |
|                                                  |   |          |?????????|??????|
|                                                  |   |          |??????    |
|   5.  () SECRETARIAL - CLERICAL (IF CHARGED      |   |          |         |        |
|DIRECTLY)                                         |   |          |         |??????|
|                                                  |   |          |          |
|   6.  () OTHER                                   |   |          |         |        |
|                                                  |   |          |?????????|??????|
|                                                  |   |          |??????    |
|        TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES (A + B)          |   |          |         |        |
|                                                  |   |          |         |??????|
|                                                  |   |          |          |
|C.  FRINGE BENEFITS (IF CHARGED AS DIRECT COSTS)  |   |          |         |        |
|                                                  |   |          |?????????|??????|
|                                                  |   |          |??????    |
|     TOTAL SALARIES, WAGES AND FRINGE BENEFITS (A |   |          |         |        |
|+ B + C)                                          |   |          |         |??????|
|                                                  |   |          |          |
|EXCEEDING $5,000.)                                               |                   |
|???????????????                                                  |                   |
|???????????????                                                  |                   |
|???????????????                                                  |                   |
|    TOTAL  EQUIPMENT                                             |?????????|??????|
|                                                                 |??????    |
|E.        |1.  DOMESTIC (INCL. CANADA, MEXICO AND U.S.           |         |??????|
|TRAVEL    |POSSESSIONS)                                          |          |
|          |2.  FOREIGN                                           |         |??????|
|          |                                                      |          |
|F.  PARTICIPANT SUPPORT                                          |                   |
|  1.       |$|104.17              |                             |                   |
|STIPENDS   | |                    |                             |                   |
|  2.       | |862.50              |                             |                   |
|TRAVEL     | |                    |                             |                   |
|  3.       | |                    |                             |                   |
|SUBSISTENCE| |                    |                             |                   |
|  4. OTHER | |600.00              |.                            |                   |
|      TOTAL NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS (24)                          |37,600   |??????|
|TOTAL PARTICIPANT COSTS                                          |          |
|G.  OTHER DIRECT COSTS                                           |         |??????|
|                                                                 |          |
|  1. MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES                                      |     310 |??????|
|                                                                 |          |
|  2. PUBLICATION/DOCUMENTATION/DISSEMINATION                     |     500 |??????|
|                                                                 |          |
|  3. CONSULTANT SERVICES                                         |  5,744  |??????|
|                                                                 |          |
|  4. COMPUTER SERVICES                                           |?????????|??????|
|                                                                 |??????    |
|  5. SUBAWARDS                                                   |?????????|??????|
|                                                                 |??????    |
|  6. OTHER                                                       |  5,550  |??????|
|                                                                 |          |
|      TOTAL OTHER DIRECT COSTS                                   |12,104   |??????|
|                                                                 |          |
|H.  TOTAL DIRECT COSTS (A THROUGH G)                             |49,704   |??????|
|                                                                 |          |
|I.    INDIRECT COSTS (F&A) (SPECIFY RATE AND BASE)               |                   |
|Base= 12,104                                                     |                   |
|Rate= 20%                                                        |                   |
|     TOTAL INDIRECT COSTS (F&A)                                  |  2,421  |??????|
|                                                                 |          |
|J.  TOTAL DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS (H + I)                      |52,125   |??????|
|                                                                 |          |
|GPG II.D.7.j.)                                                      |
|L.  AMOUNT OF THIS REQUEST (J) OR (J MINUS K)                    |$52,125  |$??????|
|                                                                 |         |
|                                           |$???????????????                         |
|PI/PD TYPED NAME AND SIGNATURE*            |DATE      |FOR NSF USE ONLY              |
|                                           |          |INDIRECT COST RATE            |
|                                           |          |VERIFICATION                  |
|ORG. REP. TYPED NAME & SIGNATURE*          |DATE      |Date    |Date of    |Initials|
|                                           |          |Checked |Rate Sheet |-ORG    |
|???????????????                            |?????????|        |           |        |
|                                                |        |           |        |
|NSF Form 1030 (10/99)  Supersedes All      |*SIGNATURES REQUIRED ONLY FOR REVISED    |
|Previous Editions                          |BUDGET (GPG III.C)                       |
                               (NSF FORM 1030)

1.    General
a.    Each grant proposal, including requests for supplemental funding,
must contain a Budget in this format unless a pertinent program
announcement/solicitation specifically provides otherwise.  A Budget need
not be submitted for incremental funding unless the original grant letter
did not indicate specific incremental funding or if adjustments to the
planned increment exceeding the greater of 10% or $10,000 are being
b.    Copies of NSF Form 1030 and instructions may be reproduced locally.
c.    A separate form should be completed for each year of support
requested.  An additional form showing the cumulative budget for the full
term requested should be completed for proposals requesting more than one
year's support.  Identify each year's request (e.g., "First year," or
"Cumulative Budget," etc.) in the margin at the top right of the form.
d.    Completion of this summary does not eliminate the need to document
and justify the amounts requested in each category.  Such documentation
should be provided on additional page(s) immediately following the budget
in the proposal and should be identified by line item.  The documentation
page(s) should be titled "Budget Justification."
e.    If a revised budget is required by NSF, it must be signed and dated
by the Authorized Organizational Representative and Principal Investigator
and submitted in at least the original and two copies.

2.    Budget Line Items
A full discussion of the budget and the allowability of selected items of
cost is contained in the Grant Proposal Guide (GPG), NSF Grant Policy
Manual (GPM) (NSF 95-26, periodically revised), and other NSF program
announcements/solicitations.  The following is a brief outline of budget
documentation requirements by line item. (NOTE: All documentation or
justification required on the line items below should be provided on the
Budget Justification page(s).)

A., B., and C. Salaries, Wages and Fringe Benefits (GPM 611).  See
definitions in GPG Appendix C.  List individually, all senior personnel who
were grouped under Part A, the requested person-months to be funded, and
rates of pay.

D.    Equipment (GPM 612).  Items exceeding $5,000 and 1 year's useful life
are defined as permanent equipment (unless lower thresholds are established
by the organization).  List item and dollar amount for each item. Justify.

E.    Travel (GPM 614 and GPM 760).  Address the type and extent of travel
and its relation to the project.  Itemize by destination and cost and
justify travel outside the United States and its possessions, Puerto Rico,
Canada and Mexico.  Include dates of foreign visits or meetings.  Air fares
are limited to round trip, jet-economy rates.

F.    Participant Support (GPM 618).  Normally, participant support costs
only may be requested for grants supporting conferences, workshops,
symposia or training activities.  Show number of participants in brackets.
Consult GPG or specific program announcement/solicitation for additional

G.    Other Direct Costs.
      1.    Materials and Supplies (GPM 613). Indicate types required and
estimate costs.
            2.    Publication, Documentation and Dissemination (GPM 617).
      Estimate costs of documenting, preparing, publishing, disseminating,
      and sharing research findings.
            3.    Consultant Services (GPM 616). Indicate name, daily
      compensation (limited to individual's normal rate or daily rate paid
      for Level IV of the Executive Schedule, whichever is less), and
      estimated days of service, and justify.  Include travel costs, if any.
            4.    Computer Services (GPM 615). Include justification based
      on estimated computer service rates at the proposing institution.
      Purchase of equipment should be included under D.
      5.    Subawards (GPM 313). Also include a complete signed budget NSF
Form 1030 for each subaward and justify details.
      6.    Other. Itemize and justify. Include computer equipment leasing
and tuition remission.  (GPG II.D.7.f and II.D.7.a.ii)

I.    Indirect Costs (GPM 630)  (Also known as Facilities and
Administrative Costs for colleges and universities). Specify current
rate(s) and base(s).  Use current rate(s) negotiated with the cognizant
Federal negotiating agency. See GPM for special policy regarding grants to
individuals, travel grants, equipment grants, doctoral dissertation grants
and grants involving participant support costs (GPM, Chapter VI).

K.    Residual Funds (GPG II.D.7.j).  This line is used only for budgets
for incremental funding requests on continuing grants. Grantees should
provide a rationale for residual funds in excess of 20% as part of the
project report.  (See GPG VII.G)

L.    Amount of Request.  Line L will be the same as Line J unless the
Foundation disapproves the carryover of funds.  If disapproved, Line L will
equal J minus K.

M.    Cost Sharing (GPM 330).   Include any specific cost sharing amounts
in excess of the minimum one percent required under unsolicited research
proposals.  Include the estimated value of any in-kind contributions.
Discuss the source, nature, amount and availability of any proposed cost
sharing on the Budget Justification page. If a proposal budget includes a
specific cost sharing level, the identified cost sharing level is expected
to be included as a requirement in the award.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: cover.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 26112 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/accessibility/attachments/20040528/39a97d05/cover.doc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: proposal.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 62976 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/accessibility/attachments/20040528/39a97d05/proposal.doc
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: budget.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 90112 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.linux-foundation.org/pipermail/accessibility/attachments/20040528/39a97d05/budget.doc

More information about the Accessibility mailing list