Hello, welcome to this webcast, product accessibility evaluations. It's being hosted by the
along with my cohost, Steve Jacobs. Steve is the president of ideal at NCR, and its also the program accessibility manager for NCR Corporation.
Steve thank you for helping us out today (beginning.)
JULIE CARROLL: Hello. And welcome to this webcast. Product accessibility evaluation. It's being hosted by the information technology technical assistance and
training center, or ITTATC as we call it. My name is Julie Carroll and I'd be your mod raid to go along with my cohost Steve Jacobs. Steve is
the president of ideal at NCR, and is also the program accessibility manager for NCR Corporation. Steve, thank you for helping ut out today.

STEVE JACOBS: Well, thank you for inviting me to cohost this panel with you. I wanted to commend ITTATC for pulling together this panel to discuss issues that are
very important with regard to developing accessible electronic and information technology.

JULIE CARROLL: Thank you. The topic today, as I said, is product accessibility evaluation  evaluation. With the implementation of section of the Rehabilitation Act, and section
of the Telecommunications Act, both of which of course have disability accessibility requirements, a number has -- of issues have surfaced surrounding
testing of products for accessibility. And today we will be talking about some of those issues, including how to verify product accessibility, how to make
procurement decision, and who should be responsible for product testing. We have an excellent panelists, and they will be discussing these topics as well as some of their own
approaches and recommendations in the area of product assessment. But before I turn to our panel, let me give you an overview of the format for today's Web tas. -- webcast. We
will spend approximately the first hour hearing from the panelists. We will run from to o'clock eastern standard time much the second hour we will open it up to the audience
and we look forward to many questions from you. There are four ways you can submit questions to us. You can phone in your questions. At --,
extension . You can fax your questions to us at --. You'll also see on the screen, there
is an e-mail link and also a chat link and you can commit your question -- submit your can hes that way. You can do it at any time during the webcast.
I'll give the numbers out later. If you have technical difficulties during the webcast, you can call and talk to one of our engineers at --,
extension . And please tell us where you are from when you submit your questions. I'll turn it over to our panelists. Our first panelist today will be Dr. Dennis Folds. And
Dr. W. Bradley Fain. They are human factory specialists from the Georgia Tech Research Institute at Georgia Tech, in Atlanta.
Dennis and Brad have developed a product assessment methodology, and they did so in response to requests
from some of their clients. And as a result of the demand that we heard from companies and also others who have to make procurement decisions, ITTATC went
to Brad and Dennis and asked them if they would modify their product so that it could be put into the public domain and used by anyone who might be interested in this type of approach.
It is one of many types of tools of this nature that ITTATC hopes to highlight for those of you out there who are interested in testing
of products for accessibility. Brad? Welcome.

W. BRADLEY FAIN: Thank you very much. I wanted to start off today by stating that the problem of accessibility evaluation is a complex one and it is difficult. It is
a difficult topic. Unfortunately, the time allotted today, I'm not going to be able to go into a lot of the important issues in sufficient detail, however, materials will be
available on our website if you choose to go to them. And I encourage everybody one to call in and ask the questions if they have them. The methodology, like I
said, that I will present today is very complex, but in general I don't think it is anymore complex than the accessibility field in general. The main purpose
for this portion of the presentation is to present our methodology. I'll talk about lessons learned, and open a forum for discussion. What I'd like to talk about today
is the generalized methodology for accessibility evaluations that we developed at GTRI. In response to an increased attention in --
that accessibility has received in the past year, several of our customers approached us about measurement of abscess built. And they were interested in measurement of accessibility
in both prototypes that are in development as well as existing product lines. So we developed specific test methods for these customers to meet their needs. As
Julie alluded to, ITTATC approached us and asked us to generate a generalized methodology to serve as a framework for the development of specific evaluation
methods. It was designed to yield very detailed data to support both product design and collection of data that would be
useful to a procurement officer when making compliance decisions. The methodology is self is task based. We felt very strongly that any assessment
of human performance requirements needed to be task based. The methodology calls for a thorough checklist evaluation as well as user in the loop testing. Used alone,
both checklist evaluation methodology and user in the loop testing methodologies have substantial short comings. However, combining the two methods into
a single methodology allows the consumer of the test data to have a more complete picture of the product's overall accessibility. Using the methodology, a method
of tasks may be tailor Toddrded -- tailored to a specific product or test objective. The way we define test objective is both in terms of the
user being looked at, the user population under consideration, and the specific component of the device that is being tested. For instance, an effective test objective
would be measure accessibility or evaluate the accessibility of the front control panel of X, Y, Z, copier for low vision users, or users with
low vision. The first part of the method that I'll describe today involves the selection of applicable checklist items from a database of items
that we collected. We collected over checklist items from sources such as section , section the accessibility literature
and other human performance literature. We then classified each item ak covereding to the types of guidance offered. For example, some checklist items clearly only
applied to documentation. So we created a special category for product documentation. We further divided the checklist items according to specific user categories.
For each evaluation, the evaluator selects the subset of items from the list of checklist items that are applicable to the objective of the test -- of
the product that is being evaluated. The evaluator then determines if guidance offered by each checklist item is met by the product and renders a pass or
fail judgment. Now, the actual importance of the pass or fail judgment depends on the evaluator's comments. Rendering a fail judgment
doesn't really tell us anything that the designer can use, other than that specific component did not pass a specific guidance. If only a portion of the user interface
failed to pass the checklist item, then the evaluator notes the reasons for the failure and notes what portion of the checklist of the user interface that didn't pass.
Some of the items are purely quantitative and straightforward to measure, and involves using a force meter to measure button press of force. Involves using a measuring device
to measure keyboard height, for example. Other items require some professional judgment to determine if the requirements are actually met. It is of critical importance then that
the evaluator be very familiar with the requirements and to some extent the intent of the checklist item. Now I'm going to ask my colleague,
Dr. Dennis Folds, to explain the second portion of the evaluation that involves performance of a task analysis and user in the loop testing.
Dennis?

DENNIS FOLDS: Thank you, Brad. A key component of this task based approach is first to conduct a task analysis of the use of the device that is being tested. The first part of a
task analysis is to identify the task that users can perform and one can use several sources to identify these tasks, if it's an existing product that is being used by
a community of users somewhere, you can certainly observe users and note the tasks that they perform. Technical documentation is also another source of test. One thing to avoid
in using technical documentation as a source of task, is the tasks identified should not simply be exercises the functions of the device,
but rather the tasks should be stated in terms of what users have to accomplish using the device, rather than just merely exercises as functions. For products that do not yet exist or have not
yet been fielded, another way to identify tasks is to design scenarios in which the various way the devices would be used by ultimate users are
described in some detail. After identifying -- producing a list of tasks in which the tasks of interest have been identified, the next step is to prioritize those
tasks. Some people resist the notion of prioritizing the tasks altogether, but I think most people agree that at least two levels of prioritization is
appropriate. There are some tasks that I properly seen as common, every day uses of the tasks, that any user would be expected to be able to perform in order for the device
to be considered accessible. There are also tasks that might only be performed once or rarely in the life cycle of a product, things that are set ut when
the product comes out of the box, or major items that might be performed and we might expect the user to
perform them. There might be something in between the extremes that use advanced features of the device that are not commonly
used, but might be used for special circumstances. We recommend allowing the three levels of prioritization to be the tasks to be identified, each
task individually. After the tasks are prioritized, they are used in developing the method of test, so the user in the loop testing can be conducted so the users perform some of the
tasks. It's it's a case that the number of tasks on the task li is larger than -- one would not include all of them in the user in the loop testing. Doing the user in the loop
testing is also something that some people question. But, we feel that it's very important when there are human performance requirements that might be met that user in the loop
testing be conducted to illustrate and to verify compliance with those human performance requirements. When you do user in the loop test, there are a number of issues that have to be addressed, not the least of which
is the selection of the users that will be used in the testing. If I -- it's always an issue when the user in the loop testing, you get a representative sample of
the population interests. This is true when dealing with accessibility issues, particularly. It's easy to come up with categories of users that you are interested in, but it's more difficult to determine if you properly
sampled the range and variability of level of capability in that user base. Nonetheless, it must be done. So one does one's best to develop
a representative sample of users representing the population of interest. In the user in the loop testing, the emphasis is on task performance, rather than user comments,
although user comments are certainly welcomed and are useful. The technique that we recommend in user in the loop testing is to measure their
performance, to ask users to do what we call key event reporting  reporting. So rather than a continuous thinking out loud process, they report when
they have trouble reporting a particular step or figuring out what to do next. It's also the case that the user in the loop testing often involves getting subjective ratings of whether a certain
task can be performed acceptably, we recommend a four point scale, going from completely unacceptable to completely acceptable or satisfactory for
those devices. During user in the loop testing brings a number of issues with it, not the least of which of course is the sampling issue. But beyond that, it's also difficult,
in some tasks, to define objective performance measures, and in those cases it may be possible to only rely on the user's subjective evaluation  evaluation. Other
issues with our methodology include the fact that it's best performed by a person very knowledgeable of the standards and of the technologies that are being evaluated, probably
more difficult for the untrained user people unaccustomed to doing these evaluations to perform. It's also the case that it may be time consuming. As it's time consuming, then the cost of using
this methodology maybe of concern to some users. Brad, do you have a wrap up?

W. BRADLEY FAIN: Yes. In summary, the methodology that we described can be used for both formative and summative evaluation. A formative evaluation is usually performed early in the design process to
test prototypes and design concepts. The feedback generated from a formative evaluation can provide a wealth of knowledge to designers. It can help identify the source of accessibility
issues, and provide feedback of those issues to the designers, and it can help designers understand the impact of potential interventions that they might have. In
contrast, the summative evaluation is a formal evaluation of a product, at or near the end of its design cycle. A summative evaluation is designed to render pass or fail
judgments of design features. The results of a summative evaluation can help designers or procurement officials for that matter determine if accessibility requirements have been met. By
far, though, the most effective use of the methodology that we have just described or any accessibility evaluation methodology for that matter is the early integration of testing in the design
process  process. By testing early, design flaws can be identified and remedied prior to the product hitting the market. By combining the utility of user in
the loop test, with a thorough checklist evaluation, I believe we have an effective and flexible methodology for evaluating accessibility.
Thank you, Dennis and Brad. I have a couple of questions. First of all, you're right. It sounds very complex. Is this something that anyone can use and are
your materials documented in such a way that someone could learn to do this themselves, or would they have to hire someone, experts like
yourselves to do this for them?

W. BRADLEY FAIN: It's always the pocket that if they don't have the in-house resource, that they need to go outside to get the expertise. However, in conjunction with ITTATC we are developing training materials
for this methodology that will be available. People will be able to access the methodology on the Web. It's purely available. It's not just something that we have any restrictions to distribution of. However,
I would suggest that, in the -- if we were to do this evaluation methodology effectively, to have background in dealing with
user testing and a thorough understanding of all the checklist items being evaluated.

I have a question. For Dennis  Dennis. You had mentioned in your assessment methodology that you identified tasks, and you don't
really address the functions of a device. But, rather, the task completed, which I think is great. That's performance based, rather than prescriptive methodology.
But, with a technology evolving the way it is, we are dealing with really a global marketplace. If you take a web-based application in
E-commerce, for example, what would you recommend be done to get representative samples of your population together, when it could be anyone, anywhere in the world? It's
easier to do that if you're working with a device that you can feel and touch. But, the type of interface that is accessible to millions of people all over
the world can change dynamically. You probably see that today, where you go to your ATM, and what you see today is different than what you might see tomorrow  tomorrow.
The question --.

I'm sorry. The question is: How do you factor into your methodology the variables I just described?

In the user sampling question in particular, it's important to identify the attributes of users it's important to evaluate in this sort of methodology. So, for example, you
mentioned the question of worldwide usage, and of course with worldwide usage the lack of language or perhaps even literacy, English or even
literacy, might be an issue. So, if you are developing an interface that is not dependent on English or even on literacy, as its basis for task performance, then you
need to create the conditions of performance in your user in the loop test, so that language is not available to support the task performance, and then see if the task can be per
forpd. -- performed.

It's also the case that even in this country, one in large cities does have access to a very broad range of people that don't have English as a first language or perhaps also have some
literacy issues.

STEVE JACOBS: Thank you.

JULIE CARROLL: I have a question for you, Brad. You mentioned pass fail kind of grade. Just curious, you know, as a blind person, I might be able to complete a task, but
what if it takes me minutes, where it takes other people a few seconds, would you consider that a pass or fail? How does that factor into your analysis?

W. BRADLEY FAIN: Well, the pass fail judgments themselves are not rendered with user in the loop testing. That is sort of a separate issue. What you have for the pass fail judgments are checklist evaluations, where
a professional evaluator or somebody that is responsible for the test data will render that judgment. And that's based on objective measures or subjective measures if it
requires professional judgment. However, the question that you asked has to do with a judgment as to whether task performance can be completed or not. We have three
categories of data in that case. We either say that the task can be completed without difficulty, meaning the user was able
to perform the task with no apparent obstruction or difficulty in performing that task. The user was not able to perform that task, meaning they couldn't complete all the task requirements.
Or, a middle ground saying that the user had difficulty in performing that task. And that information is rolled up into the results, to show the designer where the -- maybe
the speed bumps in the interface actually lie. So we break that ouchlt we don't render a pass/fail judgment in user in the loop testing, however.
STEVE JACOBS: We have a question from the audience. Thank you for calling in. This is from Austin, Texas. And I'm going to address this to Dennis and Brad. If a procurement official
determines that product A meets six out of the ten applicable requirements, and product B meets another set of six out of the
ten requirements. How does the official make a determination as to which product is more accessible? That's not too hard of a question. I'll leave it
up to either one of you to address it.

Go ahead. Using this methodology, it's possible to compare levels of accessibility of different products. But it's also possible that one would be unable to distinguish whether one product was more accessible
than another. In the case that you just cited, six out of ten versus six out of ten. That sounds like a tie in the way the question is worded. However, using the task based
approach, one can identify, for a specific user population, the percentage of the priority one pass that -- tasks that can be
accomplished for one product versus another. Priority tasks are those tasks that we expect any user to be able to do at any time using this product. So I think that
would provide a basis for a procurement official to distinguish between two products even if they were apparently tied in terms of number of different attributes.

STEVE JACOBS: Thank you.

JULIE CARROLL: I have one more question before we move on. Thinking from the perspective of let's say a procurement official how would they use a report from this type of methodology?
Are they going to get percentages or grades or are they going to get a report that is going to help them make a procurement zigs?

W. BRADLEY FAIN: Absolutely. If the test is designed to measure compliance with section , then the checklist items will be very much oriented in that fashion according to the standards.
So we will render judgments as to whether we believe that it comes close to passing or failing or whatever. And we will note specifically what component of the product
failed to be, in our evaluation, failed to meet the requirements of the standards. In addition to that, they will have task based information
in order to help them, perhaps, Judge the effectiveness of one product versus another. So they will have both types of information. So I think, you know, in summary, I think
that the combination of that information will help procurement officials make better decisions. Just because the product A, again, meets six out of the ten,
and maybe product B meets six out of the ten as well, deciding which one is a better product will be much easier using this methodology.

JULIE CARROLL: Thank you. Our next panelist is Terri Youngblood, and tirry is the vice president for technology of The Accessibility Group. Or TAG as it's commonly
referred to. And she is also president of the accessibility systems, Incorporated. And Terri is a nationally reknowned expert in the area
of accessible information technology. Terri, tell us about TAG and what your approach will be.

TERRI YOUNGBLOOD: Thank you, Julie. As you said, my name us Terri Youngblood. I'm vice president of technology for TAG and it's an acronym. The ak test built group is what
it stands for. It's a nonprofit organization. And we are dedicated to the proposition that technology should be accessible and usable by all people with a full range
of abilities and disabilities. The board of directors of TAG is very important to point out, because we are made up of talented veterans and experts in the accessibility
disability community. Our executive director is David Bomick, formerly with Microsoft accessibility, disability group and
is a key thinker in the arena. Larry Skadden, year veteran in the accessibility field. He was at the national
science foundation, programs for persons with disabilities. And myself, as she mentioned, I'm the president of accessibleible systems incorporated, which is an information technology accessibility
consulting firm. Working for the last years in cooperation with government and industry, helping to make products accessible and usable by the greatest number of people  people. And also, Modi
Cradamer, who is the -- our director of communication, who is also the director of the award winning documentary enable for people
with disabilities, which you may have seen. It was produced by Microsoft to help understand usability issues of people with disabilities. And he has also been a long time advocate to fortune
companies on accessibility issues. Peter blank, director of law, health and policy, at the University of Iowa. So together these five thinkers came
up with the group TAG, The Accessibility Group. We are made up of independent third-party testing facilities, located nationally, to provide
a valuable service. Service to industry, service to government, as well as special interest groups, helping to achieve IT accessibility conformance, accessibility with
the provisions of the technical standards of . We want to help meet the growing need for industry. We want to help industry with
, with the technical standards out, we find that industry -- IT manufacturers don't necessarily have the expertise, in-house, nor do they employ the is
individuals with disabilities that have the testing techniques or the testing skills in order to test the product to determine whether it's accessible sibl. Julie, I've been in this
position for a while where industry comes to me and says Terri, we really want to do the right thing. We want to make our product accessible but we don't know how. That's where TAG steps
in and helps. A product can be submitted for evaluation. The product can be pre-released or already released product. And TAG has staffed our
national labs with qualified individuals with various types of disabilities and skills as well. Also, engineers are present to -- as a backup for the
standard testing, will serve as a quality assurance checkpoint. We are also there to help government. Procurement officials and
requiring oh figures are left with the responsibility to gather market research in order to make the most accessible purchase. Market research can consist of
marketing materials or it can consist of going to the -- to the, by accessible database and getting a voluntary product accessible template,
it's referred to as the VPAT. And they may search for other techniques or other market research. The problem we are seeing now is that these requiring officials are looking to
the VPAT and they are finding that the VPAT is somewhat inconsistent. Manufacturers, either the manufacturer fills out the VPAT and they don't really have the skill
and understanding to understand the standard and, as you said, what it's trying to achieve. And so a lot of times the VPATs
are filled out and almost like a marketing format. And interestingly enough, looking -- and the concept of the VPAT is an excellent idea and
we support it fully. But when you look at it the way it is now, because there is a lack of knowledge out there in the industry about accessibility, you find you can take, if you visit the by
accessible data bairx you can have one product and we have done this, actually, one product two different manufacturer, and you look at the VPAT, and they are filled out apparently by people that may or may
not know exactly what was intended. So you have one standard that one manufacturer says we don't apply to this standard, even though it's the same product. The next company
says we apply to it and here is how we apply to it. So it's very inconsistent. So as a procurement official or requirement official, would go -- either the marketing material or
the information from the VPAT  VPAT. They pull two templates down and they look at them next to each other, and they say I can't tell which one is more accessible.
So TAG is here to provide standardized reports that are -- have the same look and feel and that procurement officials can easily compare and
contrast from one to another. We have several different types of services TAG offers. First one we call the audit, which is actually testing and
providing independent review based on the technical standards of section . So the results will be in a similar checklist format, with an explanation of each of
the standards and how that product meets them. We also have -- we go above and beyond, because of our mission and our mission is to educate and employ the
greatest number of individuals with disabilities  disabilities. By removing the barriers to access the technology. We also do what is called an accessibility audit. That can be ordered by industry, if
they want to look at a particular feature of their product, or say that they met the standards and they want to go above and beyond, they want to take that extra step to make the product usable by even more individuals. Unfortunately,
as we know, even if you follow the technical standards, there hay be some way, some barrier that still exist, let's say. So the accessibility
audit can go above and beyond. And in that we insure testing, compatibility testing and user testing. So compatibility testing with assistive technology, assistive
technology that is used by individuals with disabilities. So often manufacturers in today's situation may or may not be testing their products when they complete the VPAT,
the existing template. So we think it's very, very important not only to determine will you met the standards, but to also go above and beyond and to test with assistive
technology and do end-user testing as well. So we can serve as a service to those folks in the industry who don't have the knowledge and expertise  expertise. And they can take the report back and they can
use it as -- in their R and D development, in putting accessibility into their design process. We believe that industry should --
industry manufacturers of technology should also be testing internally. TAG doesn't want to replace that by any means. But we should be the
spot check, so to speak. Without simplifying it to the audience members who may not be as technical, if you write your own paragraph and you want -- and you read over
it and you read over it and you think everything is just fine, but you also maybe will give it to your editor and I'm sure he will find something that you didn't think about. Or let's take it a step further.
Give it to the person who you were intending to be your audience before you release it. And say give me your feedback. Did I get my point across? So that is the concept that we are look at.
And the role. So we are looking at industry's already good efforts in this arena. And we have what we call rapid review. And that is also for industry or government. And that
is kind of a scaled down view of that. And one use of this review would be government procurement officials or the CIOs of different
government agencies looking for a particular product  product. For example, maybe they are looking to buy a new e-mail system. And they go to -- they go to the by accessible
database maybe the things they are looking for are not listed in the VPAT. So then they could hire the TAG labs to do a rapid review of each of the software packages
in consideration, and we would do a audit against that. We call it rapid review, because it's a snapshot at the top feature, to give them a general idea of where to go
from there and then where to seek more market research on that individual tool. We have -- it's very important that TAG
-- TAG feels very important about industry and government, the disability community, working together to insure that
is a successful transition. Thank you.

JULIE CARROLL: Thank you, Terri.

STEVE JACOBS: Thank you.

JULIE CARROLL: A couple quick questions. Are you suggesting that this type of testing should be mandatory?

TERRI YOUNGBLOOD: No. Absolutely not. It's voluntary. Each organization may have expertise internally that they feel can provide testing adequately. But others don't. And
so no, it's completely voluntary.

I had a question for Terri. By the way, for those of you wanting the call in numbers, should I give the call in numbers, Julie?

JULIE CARROLL: Sure.

STEVE JACOBS: If you have a question or would like to fax your question in to us, the phone number is: --. Extension
. That is for a telephone call. For a fox, it's --. And on
the Web page that you're using to access this program, there is also an e-mail link and a chat link. And we have another -- did you have a question, Julie? We
have one from Los Angeles. And hello, Los Angeles. What is the best, and I'm addressing this to Terri, what is the
best procedure for the validation of a particular methodology?

TERRI YOUNGBLOOD: What is the best procedure -- read it again? Sorry.

STEVE JACOBS: I wish I could tell you what the writer intended to say. What is the best procedure for the validation of a particular methodology.
JULIE CARROLL: Good question.

STEVE JACOBS: Probably a testing methodology. If a company has an opportunity to test their product this way or this way or this way, how do you value a method of testing?
TERRI YOUNGBLOOD: Well, I think the end result -- the two results, one being is the application or is the product conforming to the technical standards? That
being your goal. The larger goal, though, is the testing methodology, the goal to achieve accessibility, usability by
the target audience. So I would -- the best methodology is to insure that, when you're testing the product, is your end result, conformance with the standard and
accessibility of the product.

STEVE JACOBS: Is there a way to document that ahead of time, to let somebody look at before they select a particular methodology to evaluate their
products?

TERRI YOUNGBLOOD: Sure. With the end result being, for example, our different views, section audit would have a testing methodology, performance
technical standard by technical standard, feature by feature. They would have one methodology. Now, if someone wanted to go above and beyond the technical standards and wanted to find
out is my application accessible via a screen reader, it would be a different set of technical. So it can be documented and they can choose between the different options.

STEVE JACOBS: I have to make a correction in a phone number. Apparently somebody in the studios is getting a ton of telephone calls and they were not supposed to. I gave out the wrong extension. It is not what I gave you. And I won't
repeat it. But the correct extension is extension . The whole number is: --
and there should be a template to evaluate how accurately I'm doing this. Sorry. I had one question for Terri. This is
my question. If any company had a choice of hiring a third-party entity to, and in their expertise to test a product,
why wouldn't they just simply want to hire someone with the same expertise as the people in this third-party entity, and bring that function in-house, so that they
could test a myriad of different systems using that expertise? I know your chairperson, Dave Bolnick came from industry and I have a high
degree of respect for him. Hi Dave, if you are listening. Terri?

TERRI YOUNGBLOOD: We encourage it. It's not something that we discourage. Our group of contacts, so to speak, that are
doing testing for TAG labs are a variety of the individuals you're talking about. Our relationship with testing, testing groups around the country are
just the expertise that you are referring to. If you want to bring -- if an organization wants to bring the expertise in-house, we think it's a great idea. It helps them to
instill the accessibility into the design process.

STEVE JACOBS: Thank you.

TERRI YOUNGBLOOD: You're welcome. I wanted to add something, if you don't mind, not necessarily to that question. TAG's report leaves two choices for industry. First of all, it is not a certification.
That is a question that people often ask me. Does TAG certify your product? And the answer is no. We have what we call a logo program. If a manufacturer
gets a report on a product, they can keep the report private. And that's important to know, because initially industry was a little nervous. We don't want all
of our information to be given to the public. What if we need to make some changes to it. And we said that's very important. So the report can be kept private and industry can take those findings back to their developers
and product managers and say look, these are some of our weak points. How are we going to innovate? And that's what industry does best. So this report will help
industry innovate on how to make their products more accessible. On the other hand, it can also be made public. So, if a product is very accessible, and
it meets the standards, a manufacturer can have the TAG logo on their product and the logo does not mean certified or not certified,
compliant or not compliant. And it clearly states that this product has been tested by an expert independent group. And what that will indicate to a procurement official or to a requirement official is
that, Hmmm, there is more market research here for me available other than the marketing materials of the manufacturer. It kind of puts the manufacturer in a
sticky situation by filling out the VPAT. It says Hmmm, I don't want to tell everybody about a couple weaknesses I may have. So they have an inherent conflict of
interest by filling that out. So this logo program will give them an opportunity of demonstrating that they have seeked an expert evaluation.
STEVE JACOBS: Thank you.

JULIE CARROLL: Terri, are you not concerned that a logo sort of connotes a seal of approval and could be misconstrued to imply that something, TAG
has determined something to be accessible, when in fact, the report, if you could get your hands on it, may show it's not accessible at all?

TERRI YOUNGBLOOD: We are not concerned bit. Because the logo clearly says it has been tested, and that means that information is available. Much like a consumer's reports kind of that you. You know
if something was tested by consumer reports, the data is available. That's what we are saying. I'm not concerned  concerned. But that's a good question.

JULIE CARROLL: One more question about testing. I assume that when you talk about testing you're talking about does the assistive technology that a person might need to use with it
work, when you use a particular product or can a person with a disability use that product? I think there is a flip side to that. And
sometimes when you plug in assistive technology to a product, the assistive technology might work, but the original product no longer works properly. Do you test both sides of that?

TERRI YOUNGBLOOD: Yes. We do. That's very important. Because it is a compatibility between the assistive technology and the mainstream technology. It's a very important
point you brought up. Because I commend industry, since the reauthorization of industry manufacturers, because they really have been taking an active role in communicating with the
assistive technology vendors, and they are much smaller, compared to the big boys. So keeping up and keeping in communication is very difficult. Industry has been doing a very good job of keeping in touch. But TAG, by doing
compatibility testing, as well in our accessibility testing will serve to boost that communication process even more. We hope to keep an open conversation between industry and the
assistive technology vendors, hoping to facilitate even more communication.

JULIE CARROLL: Thanks. Junk junk thank you very much. Carol care we are now going to move onto the next panelist. Kenneth Salaets is with us today. He is the director of government
relations for the information technology industry council, here in Washington. Ken has also been involved at a national level in a number of initiatives relating to the implementation of
section , including the development of the Voluntary Product Accessibility Template, or VPAT as Terri has referred to it. Ken, thank you for joining
us.

KENNETH SALAETS: Thank you. I'd like to thank you and at particular for the opportunity to participate in this webcast, the first that I've had the pleasure to be in. And also thank Steve
Jacobs of NCR, one of the valiant members of our working group at IT I, for his participation. The information
technology industry council. We have other companies such as NCR IBM, Compaq, OAOL,
time warner. I could go on. It's quite a group of innovative and progressive companies. Frankly, it has made my job far simpler to have the resources available that we
do at IT I, as a consequence of these companies committing time and effort and in some cases dollars, to
assist the program. We have been around since . NCR, the national cash register, was one of the
charter members. We have gone through a lot of name changes, but all in all we represent what I believe are the most opportune issues, in one of the most opportune
industries as impacting the economy but making distinct differences in the lives of all of us here and probably everybody that is accessing this webcast. We
have -- cutting edge is a cliche, but if you wanted to talk about cutting edge technology and cutting edge companies, I think these are them. And it really affords an opportunity in Washington,
D.C. and around the world to have doors opened for you when you are able to mention that you are working on these particular issues, and trying to open the digital
network to all user, all individuals, worldwide. It's a challenge that we have gladly taken upon ourselves, and we enjoy the opportunity again to engage
in discussions of this nature. That brings us to section , how did we get here? Red Dawson, president of IT I, made a personal commitment a few years ago
to make sure that we were directly engaged on this issue. Our companies made us very aware that this was of distinct importance and interest to them as manufacturers and suppliers of technology. And
he gave myself and my predecessor, John Gottfried wide berth in trying to work with the companies and
government and advocacy groups to try to tackle the challenges of enabling the government to identify which technology in the marketplace would meet the needs of their --
Allen doesn't like the word end-users, but their employees. And we took that on, working closely with Terri Weaver at GSA, for example, in trying to
identify a mechanism that we thought would be convenient and useful to procurement officials to take a snapshot of the marketplace and try to ascertain what was available as of the
various effective dates of the standards to be able to begin to address the needs of the employees, as well as private citizens accessing government information. GSA started
working on something akin to a template at about the same time we did. So we joined forces with Terri and her folks to try to hammer out some kind of an agreement or
a document, which we then called the template, that would assist the procurement officials in taking that snapshot and complying with the federal acquisition regulation
that says they have to go out and do market research just as we do in the private sector, to ascertain what is in the marketplace. It wouldn't make any sense at all for a federal agency to put together a
solicitation for products if, in putting that solicitation on the street, as we say, nobody could respond with a product that could meet the requirements. So, in recognizing, as the access
board did, as well as Craig Lugard, the chairman of the federal steering committee on , that there is no on/off switch
that you can flick and suddenly everything is accessible. We started working on what we thought was a transitional process toward helping the agencies identify what was in the marketplace, but also helping
companies, helping businesses to provide information to find some mechanism, and a useful, free mechanism, snd plying information to the procurement officials. What we have
found so far that is the template, the VPAT, has proven to be a fairly popular tool, notwithstanding some of the
comments you may have heard here today. We have, for example it's available on IT I's Web Page. That is our acronym. It's available at www.IT IC.org.
If you go to that Web Page and it's approximately in the middle of the home page, you find an article that identifies accessibility.
If you click on that, that takes you to documents that explain our position and ultimately to the template itself. I believe Terri Weaver made it
accessible by the by accessible.gof site. And by the number of hits that we are receiving, you find links on a number of other
pages throughout the government. I'm proud to say that the section related documents on the IT I Web Page are still
receiving probably the highest volume of hits, and that is both from the federal governments, state governments, from private companies, advocacy and also foreign governments and
foreign industry. So we believe that it has been a useful tool. We are happy to provide the service. Again, free of charge. And we put it out there on the marketplace of ideas for use by both government and industry.
Is it perfect? No. It's not perfect. Is anything perfect? No  No. There is really no panacea, no silver bullet on accessibility and particularly on
determining whether a product is or is not accessible. Primarily because you have to determine the individual needs of the individual user. You may have fairly convenient labels
that we sometimes fall into, in using to describe certain types of disabilities. But in reality, there are so many variations and colors, so to speak, that
one solution which may be fine for people, may not serve the needs of the th person. In fact, may not be effective in serving the needs of the th and th
persons  persons. So as a consequence, we encourage the access board, through the advisory committee that they had beforehand, again, Mr. Gottfried is serving on that board on behalf of
IT I, to build flexibility into the standards. The reasons being, if you try to drive a stake into the ground and try to be very explicit and descriptive
in describing what the technology has to do and how you have to describe that product, companies will billed to that single point and probably won't go beyond it, and innovation dies. One of the advantages
of our marketplace and industry is if you describe what you are trying to accomplish in terms of performance requirements, then we will stumble and fall all over each other, throw our
engineers at it, R and D and everything else, to try to out compete each other to come up with what we believe is the best solution. As a consequence, you'll end up with four or five optionness that
marketplace and that's the very thing the government tends to look for. The government prefers to buy or have multiple options -- multiple providers for the simple fact that they can force us
to compete for that business. We find the same thing occurs in the realm of the people with disabilities and advocacy groups in terms of looking for solutions. They also recognize that one size
clearly does not fit all. And if we had a one size fits all world from which to buy, there would be very little choice. And as a consequence, very little innovation.
The template is a voluntary mechanism for providing information. We don't prescribe how to use it. We don't -- in fact, there was a prescription handed
back to usaq that rather try to take the standards themselves and interpret them in a certain way, that rather we print verbatim the
standard itself into the template. The Department of Justice had a hand in that, in advising Terri Weaver and the like and that information was pass odd to us and we accommodated that. Nevertheless,
if you paid attention to the access forum, the event that occurred in Denver, there was quite a bit of comments and criticism about the template and about the
experience that some government officials are having, including contracting officers who of course were not expected to have to use that, but unfortunately, in some cases, that
responsibility is being flowed down. And I don't envy their job when they are trying to manage contracts on a daily basis. But the intent is to -- this -- the
template is a work in progress. As you look on the ti IT Iwebsite. That is the way we define it. We have fully intended to continue to work with government, work with advocacy groups
and also the AT industry to find ways to improve this tool. In fact, we entered into discussions with GSA, to try to generate some dialog with the contracting officials
that have been using this tool to hear specifically from them what concerns they have, what weaknesses they may perceive or what additional tools they think might be helpful.
What we could do is not necessarily change the template itself, but we would add additional resources on the IT! ITI website that provides guidance
on how best to use it, with the hope that when business looks at the template and decides that they will fill it out, thr that there would be a degree of consistency in experience. So when contracting
officials go out to the Web Pages of various company, whether through the by accessible.Gov site or other Internet sites, that they would have the ability to make more
comparisons in terms of what is being represented in terms of the material. But ultimately, the companies themselves are responsible for the information they provide, it's designed to be a tool. It's not
an end all to be all. It's the beginning of a dialog. Very seldom do drting officials particularly in large procurements go
out and make a decision based on a single piece of paper. In fact, they directly engage with not only the sales force but also the designers and engineers of the companies to
try to derive as much information about the product and technology that they are contemplating. That is called competition. And the government is effective at driving industry to a very
fair price for very effective technology and service  service. And if that were not the case, frankly, they would not buy it. We believe in the farkt place, that the marketplace will
make distinct -- determinations on what is and is not an effective product or an effective offer. You have seen the marketplace on this panel right here. There are a couple competing testing
methodologies and groups here that are advocating their services, and we think that is great. We think there ought to be as many possible options in the marketplace as possible. That is the nature of the marketplace.
Sometimes you develop what we refer to as cottage industries, where a whole new industry or groups will spring up to address a certain issue. That is the nature of the market and we applaud that. Companies should be free
to test internally and to make presentations, representations to the government, regarding the accessible features of their products. We do that in save techlt we do that in electromagnetic
fields, we do that in the energy star program and the like and we have yet to have anybody suggest to us, I believe, on a blanket basis, that somehow we are being deceptive in terms of
those representations. Does that mean that everybody is as complete as they can be? No. Does that mean some companies are better at it than others? Yes. Do
some companies have more resources to meet it than other smaller companies? I think that's a given. But nevertheless, crystalized this marketplace.
It woke up the industry I think it's fair to say. It has helped to generate an ongoing dialog between the IT and AT industries that is growing more healthy by
the day and will even be engaged in further, next week, at CSUN. And we opened the doors and the channels and increased the opportunities to talk to people like Allen
and his group and other individuals that represent people with disabilities. We are encouraged by this process. We applaud Georgia Tech and its effort and
innovation that they have shown in trying to tackle this through the education department contract. We have seen other groups that -- such as accessibility forum also show sincere
effort to try to address these very important issues. Again, I represent some of greatest companies in the world. They are highly committed  committed. I can run through a whole list of names. I won't. Because I'm sure I
will forget somebody and I'll hear about it later. But I really appreciate the opportunity that I've had to be involved in this, because, frankly, I didn't pay a lot of attention to these issue, until I
got this accessible device and now it sits on my nose, called glasses. Because of my Vanity, the bifocals, you can't see. I
have come to appreciate the importance of this technology. Somebody said to me that with the aging of the USpopulation, the world population, that technology
is going to become less and less accessible to people. With all due respect, I dismiss that. I believe that technology is going to open doors, windows, ears, eyes, it's going
to create a phenomenal new world where we will be able to access information beyond our dreams, even for those of us who assume that we don't have a disability or at least
have not yet discovered it. Again, Julie, I thank you for the opportunity. I welcome the opportunity to respond to questions. We believe in partnership, whether it's with government, with other
industry groups, with the AT industry, the advocacy groups  groups. And we encourage them to contact us through the website or directly at --.
I'd be happy to respond as I can. But this is not the only issue that I work, so I have to juggle Aother issues important to our members. But we are committed to pursue this and
carry this forward as aggressively as possible and we welcome everybody to join that effort.

JULIE CARROLL: Thank you. I have to say that working with ITTATC has been great to seeing the enthusiasm that has crept into industry for
accessibility. Thank you for your comments. I have a couple questions. The voluntary product template, are you suggesting that it is sufficient by itself that companies shouldn't
be expected to do anymore? What do you think about this third-party testing?

KENNETH SALAETS: Third-party testing, we think, is a useful tool to complement industry's own test, to complement government's own research, to
complement the best practices that tends to develop in the marketplace. One thing that I've come to appreciate in terms of government contracting, and dealing with the government, is that contracting
officers are highly professional individuals who have a far better understanding of technology than I think we give them credit for. And the reason I say that is because I sat down with many of them over the
years, the last years that I've been with ITI, and have found that -- often I've gone into the meetings with misconception about
their understanding of not only the acquisition code but also of the nature of our industry and the business itself. I think that some of the risks of third-party testing, if it's viewed as sort
of the panacea or if it's shopped as the sole solution to enabling procurement agencies to you know, meet their
requirements, their obligation to comply with , is that in and of itself I think they tend to have a -- there is
a tendency for third-party testing to interpret the standards. And while we all try to tackle the standards, try to read in between words, in
between lines, to try to ascertain exactly what the access board was say, and the more importantly trying to meet the needs of the individual employees themselves, I think it's important
that we not find ourselves restricted in terms of the ability to respond with innovative products to compete for that space. And there is some risk that third-party testing can start to
become interpretive and there by limiting in terms of the access standards.

STEVE JACOBS: I have a question for Ken. Before I do that, though, before this broadcast, we had a bit of lunch and I was talking to Ken. I hope I don't embarrass you. But Ken's daughter is watching
this webcast. Her name is Karen. And Ken didn't ask plea to do this, but I thought I'd let Ken say hi to Karen. Go ahead.
KENNETH SALAETS: Her name is Kera.

STEVE JACOBS: I do have a question for you, and it may be one that I think a lot of people in the audience would want to ask, but we didn't receive this as a question from the outside. You represent a very diverse group of companies who
compete with each other. Do you find it difficult to find ways to get all of the companies to agree on any one particular
way to do things or be at the VPAT or third-party testing, or anything  anything? How does that all work  work?

KENNETH SALAETS: It's very interesting -- it's a very interesting world in which to work, for a number of reasons. One is you often -- not in this issue, not
in , but let's talk about some other issue, for example, you may find that if you had companies at the table, you might have in general agreement and two violently
opposed. And the challenge in the nonprofit industry, association environment, is to identify common denominators among all of the companies, and then try to build
from there. What we tend to do is if there is an issue, what I tend to do, I'll speak for myself. If there is an issue where I don't believe we can establish consensus, then we might simply have to agree to disagree,
and not work that issue. In section -- with section and accessibility, it has been the complete opposite case. And one reason is the commitment of all of the individuals that
our member companies have put at the table. I would put in a plug for Microsoft, Laura Ruby. She is an outstanding chair,
hello, Laura. Tell my boss. And she is an excellent facilitator. And we have also other exceptional individuals who bring their
ideas to the table. They will fight for their ideas. They will argue every possible way they can think of. And we tend to be a very collegial
group in the sense that we all are trying to pursue I think the same objective. In some case, when I hear the individuals I work with I'm trying to ascertain, are you representing your company, are you
representing people with disabilities? Because they are so closely knit within the various communities that they serve, and of course committed to their companies as well, and their ideas, that I think it is really facilitated
the opportunity that we have had to work with the different groups and to develop the rapport that I think we have. As Julie said, that we finally discovered, I would like to think that ITI may
have been ahead of the game in terms of having that dialog and particularly the individuals, many of whom predated and predated , for that matter, working on accessibility. A number of
our companies were engaged in this business for , years. It's not necessarily something that just fell in their laps. But then again, section , or the amendments, I should say, have again crystalized
that marketplace and they focused all of our attention on this important issue.

STEVE JACOBS: Thank you. I have a question from our viewers from Chicago. Keep your questions down to less than words, if you can. I'm going to
abbreviate a little bit. What happens when product testing is done, someone signs off on its accessibility
in their report, and an individual with a disability turns out not to be able to use the product? It goes on. Do we run the risk of getting into a situation where third-party
testing reports conflict with the experience of users? And if so, will that third-party -- sorry, report, become
a shield for agencies who had the responsibility for making certain their procurements were of accessible products? Did that make sense?
KENNETH SALAETS: Yes.

STEVE JACOBS: I was trying to read it, not listen to what I was reading.

KENNETH SALAETS: I have no idea who submitted that. Third-party testing, if you go to the access board's website frx and the frequently asked questions, I believe it's A, and it talks about the question
of compliance. We hear the word compliance a lot, for -- I don't think that is unusual for people to talk about whether or not the products are complying or
vendors or manufacturers are complying. But it has been made clear that it's the federal agencies themselves that are obligated to comply with section . The
amendments essentially put teeth into the law. has been in the book or on the books whatever cliche you want to use, for many years. But the
amendments enabled the federal employee, and in some case, private citizens, to complain or protest or take stronger action relative to the accessibility of products, simply
having a third-party test your products or a product that you're contemplating buying, as a federal agency, does not remove, at least according to our lawyers, the liability
that that agency has to still comply with . And hence it does not necessarily preclude any type of legal or complaint process being followed by an employer or private
citizen in certain cases  cases.

JULIE CARROLL: Just one more question, Ken. If you've watched the news recently, there has been some resistance on the part of industry, not ITI, per se. But
some in industry, regarding third-party testing. And maybe you can address what that is coming from, where that is coming from. Is it
a fear of mandatory testing? Is it a fear that if some companies do third-party testing, that then by default they all
will have to really in order to compete, and drive up the cost? Can you speak to the concerns that we have been hearing about?

KENNETH SALAETS: I think there are numerous concerns. I don't tend to sit around too often with individuals and discuss third-party testing concerns. Frankly, we have tried to
move beyond this issue and our focus is primarily on the interoperability and working closely with the assistive technology industry. Some of the concerns might be the arbitrary or subjective
nature of third-party testing. It's not to say that there isn't expertise in the marketplace, it's not to say that there aren't resources out there that could be useful, for example, as a complement, internal
testing or validating process. But we are opposed to mandatory testing. We are opposed to agencies requiring it  it. And according to a copy of a letter I have to GSA administrator
Perry, representative Davis of Virginia is also opposed to third-party testing, mandatory testing. A part of the concern is that it might create a sense or
a misunderstanding of what that testing implies in terms of the viability. I appreciate that Terri says that the TAG is not focusing on certifications. I think initially there was
at least perhaps a misunderstanding but interpretation that that was indeed, the case. And in talking to individuals like Dave Drapkin of
the GSA acquisition policy shop and others, it was explicit that there could be no certification or warranty requirements imposed by agencies again, on manufacturers, or
resellers, ordealers, whatever the case might be, in terms of who the government is -- from whom they are purchasing their products. So, I think there is concern in that respect. Also, there is a concern
that if you are developing new innovative approaches to accessibility, addressing the needs of people with disabilities, that
if it's internal and particularly if it's proprietary and cutting edge, let's say, using again that cliche, there is probably no way that these outside
individuals or organizations would really have access to that information, that approach, first of all, and so hence their evaluation might be skewed
by not understanding the approach. Secondly, if it's a proprietary approach that maybe is going to revolutionize a particular type of way of addressing a particular disability, the company developing
that technology would want to be able to hit the marketplace running, and not have their competitors necessarily have access to that information prior to introducing the product. So
there is competitive concern and constraints in that respect.

JULIE CARROLL: Thank you very much. Next we are going to hear from Allen Densmore. He is from the American
foundation for the blind. AFB has really been a catalyst to advance accessible technology for many
many years, going back to the inception of section and all the way through implementation of section . And Allen has certainly been involved allle
way. He is also the co-chair of a technology task force of the consortium for citizens with disabilities. Allen, thanks for coming.
Allen: Thank you very much. And Ken I was glad to hear the bit of history, that your organization is actually older than ours. Particularly in terms of your involvement in technology. We
date back to but we were not involved in technology. But for anybody who remembers, the and a third LP record, for
anybody who can even remember records, that was a bees of technology that we partnered in the development of, which then led to the technology that made available the first talking books.
So, I don't quite go back that far. But I do go back far enough in the various iterations of section to make what I
hope will make sense for people. One of the things that I think everyone needs to notice about the way section is written is
that it is written such that the procurements that are undertaken in conformance with section have the look and feel of procurements that are undertaken generally.
Now, that happened for a very important reason. Because that process was very thoroughly vetted before it went back into the legislation by the individuals
both in the Office of management and budget, and in what are referred to as the cognizant agencies, such that it would look exactly like what they are
used to. And I think that's important. Because that's one of the things that drives policy in this. Because the policy, as you've heard, can occasionally
get very complicated. Procurement is sometimes verging on procurement theology. But that's because procurement goes in that direction generally. And
when you hear us involving ourselves in some of the questions about how to make certain determinations as to whether something is accessible, what you're listening to is
a debate that has the same look and feel of procurements generally. The requiring officers are used to going through this. The procuring officers are used to going
through this. And that's one of the things that driving . It also drives us to try to solve some of these problems, or at least to present what we think are reasonable
alternatives for solving some of these problems, so that a procurement officer can make a good decision. From our -- my point of view I think is similar
to what a procurement or requirement officer is all about, and that's essentially trust but vair fivemt it is the verification issue that is -- verify. It
is the verification issue that is very important. There is a high level of trust. But often when you look at something as complex as information technology, you have to be able to verify that certain things
happened or should happen, so that you can make a decision about whether what you're buying is in conformance with section . Now, there are a number of way
that is that can happen. But again, what we feel very strongly about is that companies vendor, should also be participating in something that has, again,
that same look and feel. There may be complicated issues there, but that procurement process is one that is understood. We
think companies understand fully in a lot of areas what they have to deliver. And they understand, also, fully, or to the extent that anyone can ever understand what's in the
mind, sometimes, of a requirement officer, that there are certain benchmarks for the delivery of that product. Similar to what we do with section . What
we would like to see is a situation, and I think there is a great potential for this continuing, because the basis for this happening is forming right now, such that companies
compete on the value of accessibility, and the delivery of accessibility. Now, it's the value of
accessibility that I don't think any of us really debate about. In a word, and you look at section , one of the things that you need to remember is that it says that a federal employee with a disability
or a customer of federal services with disability should be able to acquire that information and use that information in the same manner and time as
an individual without a disability. Now, that is a fairly simple process to think about, but it's also why we got involved in trying to set up certain benchmarks for how you'd
make judgments about whether that was happening. And then, in turn, how a consumer could make a complaint if they did not think that it was happening. Sorx we went into the whole
process with industry and with the advocacy groups and also with the federal ocean of trying to look at what the accessibility standards would be  be. One of the other things that I think is
important to remember about section is that in my view it is an innovation driven piece of legislation. Because if you look at it, one of the things that
it does talk about is refreshment of those standards. We are very concerned as well, that a one-size fits all concept of disability
accessibility is not going to work. It's not even going to work for individuals who are blind or visually impaired. But we are also concerned that in the process of setting up some sort of evaluation scheme, that you have to look
very carefully at something, as Ken was saying, that does not set the bar so low that people will say well, this is all I have to do. And that's all I'm going to do. We don't
think that's going to happen. We don't think that's going to happen for a couple of reasons. Number one, again, going back to the idea of the look and feel of procurement, procurement
officers are in the process not of doing a once and for all buy of electronic and information technology, they do this on a constant basis. They have
to refresh these requirements themselves. In turn, section very clearly calls for a look back periodically to see what
does have to be refreshed in those standards. So we think that the possibility that we are going to be stuck at a certain level is probably not going to
happen, simply because of what drives procurement officers and what the law says, in fact. So where do we go with this? Well, as I said, we are very much from the point of view of
trust and verify. We think that the VPAT is an excellent way of starting out. We have seen some really fine presentations through
that VPAT that, from our point of view, would allow a procurement officer to look at something and say this is what they did. This is how they did it. And this is how they say it works. And that's really the
most that can be expected from something like this. There is, I think, a problem in addition, though, in that when you do look at this, there are also situations where some companies have not done that.
Some companies have simply directed you to their home page that talks about their commitment to accessibility. Well, that's an easy one and most companies who compete
on that would probably look at their associate company and say what are you doing? In competition, I would not think that would work. But going back to
what we look at and what we look for is a process that's going to give some benchmarks, which is why I think we like the concept of independent
testing. And notice that I say that this is a concept. Independent testing, from our point of view, is not a product evaluation system that puts
a signed, sealed, approval on something. It is a process, though, that tells you that when we looked at this product, we had certain benchmarks about how that product should
perform. And that when we say benchmarks, they are something that the company can look at and that the requirement officer or the procurement officer
can look at as well to say this is the process that they went through. Now, it's also possible that that process isn't going to work  work. And, in fact, we think, again, that this is
a reflection of the way the procurement process in general, works, because there are sections of procurement, generally, where, for example, they will test
software for compatibility with the basic operations of whatever the application is supposed to be providing. And that's done independently. And, in that process, there are
also situations where the particular device or software that's being tested is probably not going to pass. But the fact of the matter is, it also shows you what
you need to do. It gives a procurement officer some basis for some objective judgment, because there has got to be a basis for that in this process, such
that they can see that there were a certain set of processes that went through, and that as near as we can get to something as complicated in standard setting,
that these processes are roughly comparable. Now, that is something that is going to be a moving target, over time. That is something that we are all going
to learn from. I think the companies as well as the testing process itself. But again, we think that something like that is substantially in conformance with the way
procurement goes. It has the look and feel. I think another thing that we would look for in a process is the involvement of qualified individuals with disabilities.
This is something that we have seen as a practical example, wherein there are certain claims that are made for accessibility that, in
fact, if you looked at what the assumptions that the company was making about its product, are probably accurate, as far as that company knew
in terms of the applicability of that product to the general population. What you do need to be able to do is to have individuals who are qualified in
that process, to begin to look also in the verification scheme of things to say: Not so much that we are the people who are going to verify that this
is good, right and true, but that we are the people who because of our background can also give you some indication of what you ought to be looking for in terms
of the workability and the accessibility of that product. I think in sum, we are very excited about this. We think that this is a process
that can work and we think that the commitment that has been shown by almost everyone that we have dealt with is very, very substantial, primarily because they
think that it can deliver a range of exciting products, and that's what we're looking for in this. We're not looking for a complaint driven process. We are not looking
for a legally driven process. What we're looking for is something that, again, has the look and feel that everybody is used to, but begins to deliver products so
that people will have the access to those products and to the information that was contemplated by the law  law.

JULIE CARROLL: Thank you, Allen. I just have one quick question for you. We know that some government agencies are performing their own testing, rather
extensive in-house testing, before they buy a product. And then we have organizations here who will do it for you or teach you to do it in-house. Those
-- does the disability community that you know of have a position as to who should be doing that testing or do they have a preference? Or does it matter?

Allen: Well, I think it does matter. And substantially what the technology and telecommunications task force of CCD has said is that that should be independent testing. Now, with
respect to whether that resides outside of the government or whether it resides in another entity, when we look at the concept of independent testing, what we do
look for is the same benchmarks. If the federal government, if the federal agency were to decide to do this in-house, that those same benchmarks
exist that an independent unit would use.

JULIE CARROLL: Thank you. I'm afraid we are going to have to close out this portion of our program. I want to thank our panelists. Our audience really wants to get in on this. So we need
to move along. While the questions are coming across and Steve is getting them organized, I do want to give you a quick overview of ITTATC, the host of today's Web
cast. It stands for the information technology technical assistance and training center. We are a project funded by NID DR, national
institute on disability and rehabilitation research. And we have a number of partner, although the project is based at Georgia Tech in Atlanta. Also involved is the world institute on
disabilities. The disability business technical assistance centers. The information technology association of America. And the
University of Iowa's College of law, health policy and disability center. Our mission is to advance the implementation of section and
section for proceed -- through providing technical assistance and training. And our primary stakeholders are industry, state governments, and
consumers. And we encourage you to visit our website and use the contact link there, and will the us know how we might be able to assist you. Steve,
do we have some questions from the audience?

STEVE JACOBS: We do. And I should probably apologize. I know that we are not going to get to everyone's question. So apologies ahead of time. We have one question, how can I get a transcript
of this broadcast? I don't know.

JULIE CARROLL: I can answer that. There is a transcript of all of our webcasts, posted after the event. It takes about hours ordinarily to get it up  up. And so it will be right here at
TVWorldwide.com's website.

STEVE JACOBS: Okay. And we have several questions here, and I thought I would ask Allen one question, and then maybe let the panel see if they have any questions for each other.
Let's see. I remember the question, but it's in this stack and I'm not finding it. It's fairly well-known that
does not focus on or address cognitive disabilities. So I was going to ask Allen how he thinks that
issue should be addressed through any kind of testing. What are your thoughts about persons can cognitive
disabilities, since the regulation didn't isolate certain groups, it's talking about anybody accessing ENIT just
as anyone else can.

Allen: Well, there is no one size fits all for cognitive disabilities much as in the same situation as other disabilities. What I think developers should be looking at is that there are certain common
elements of accessibility of information. The examples that I would give is that for an individual with cognitive
disabilities, there may be much the same as an individual with a learning disability, or someone with low vision, as an example. And that is what's on the screen? How
fast does it go by me on that screen? Do I have an ability to shrink the information on that screen or to stap the
flow of the information on the screen so that I can read it? That's an example, I think, of where you can cover some of these situations, so that you don't have to
tease out each disability. And I think as we are moving along we probably will learn more how to make some of those applications across disability.

STEVE JACOBS: Thank you. I have a question from the audience for Terri. And I don't have a city on this one. But I'll use it -- I do. It's Washington,
D.C.. I was going to use the person's name. It's from DC. Ms. Youngblood's analogy about sending the paragraph to someone's
editor is interesting. You know what I'm talking about.

TERRI YOUNGBLOOD: Yes.

STEVE JACOBS: Okay. Good. That type of evaluation is enhairntly subjective and some expressed concern that evaluations also
involve inherent subjectivity. How do TAG's testing processes account for this subjectivity?

TERRI YOUNGBLOOD: It's an interesting question and I -- the comparison with the paragraph was simply to simplify the concept of -- for those in the audience that
aren't technical for testing methodologies. But the testing can -- in terms of subjective, whether the testing is subjective, it should be and can be in some
cases. But with the strict methodology on testing products, feature by feature, I think you can use both types of measures for that.
STEVE JACOBS: Thank you. Julie?

JULIE CARROLL: Anymore questions from the audience? We have more time.

STEVE JACOBS: Yes, we do. And this is from Florida. No. Georgia. Excuse me. Could you please tell us how we
can determine that a product is accessible? Well, who should we ask this question to? I'll let you collect. -- select.
JULIE CARROLL: Let's start with Brad and Dennis.

W. BRADLEY FAIN: The question of accessibility is a complex one because there are so many definitions of what accessibility really is. I guess if you go back to the -- back to the core definition or the
lay person definition is that a person with a given disability, and you can define the disability categories to some extent. There may be some overlap. And then there is also a special case
where you have multiple disabilities that you have to consider. But, if you define that user group, then that user group has to be able to use the technology that we're talking about. So, in
our scheme of things, in addition to the checklist evaluation, actually demonstrate that go a user with a given functional capability or functional
limitation, however you choose to describe it, are able to make use of the product effectively in the fashion that it was intended to be used in. Collecting
that data and demonstrating that is one step towards demonstrating accessibility. It's not the complete answer. There are other issues to be considered, as everybody knows. But at least
it's one step toward demonstrating accessibility.

STEVE JACOBS: Thank you. Any other panelists --.

Was the question, how do you define accessibility?

STEVE JACOBS: The question was, can you tell us how we can determine if a product is accessible.

That would be a whole day's show. However, given -- narrowing the question, how can you determine whether an application, let's use a software application,
is accessible to an individual who is visually impaired? -- impaired it would be a better question to answer to draw a conclusion for someone. And,
and specifically, if an individual uses a piece of technology, like a screen reader, a screen reader interacts with a piece of software in a
way that it can -- it speaks what is on the screen to the individual. So, in order for an individual to use a software application, the interaction between the
assistive technology and the software application must be evident. The user must be able to locate all the controls on
the screen. They must be able to follow instructions. They must be able to complete all the tasks that are involved with using a piece of software application. So it's a very
complex question to answer.

STEVE JACOBS: Ken?

KENNETH SALAETS: At the risk of over as many reply fiing, I'm going to assume that -- over simplifying, I want to assume that the question goes to the notion of buying a
product and how do you determine whether a product, one over another, might be better. In terms of my own experience, I recently bought a
digital cam remarks I wasn't looking for accessibility. But there were features that I was interested in. I looked at the product itself and the representations made by the manufacturer, in this case it was going to best buy and
seeing what was available on the shelf that I could actually touch, examine it, evaluate, in my own respect. After that, I did my own research. I looked on the Internet. I looked for
Internet magazines. I looked in digital camera magazines and the like and made an evaluation based on the information that was provided there. I would assume that if an individual is
contemplating making an acquisition, that you would have access to different resources. Not everybody has access to the Internet. We just assume they do, since we do, sometimes. But I think there is probably
ample information in the marketplace, and in particular if the manufacturer had a product that had certain accessible features, I would assume that they would make that information available, because that would be
a particular marketing aspect that they would want the customer to know in the event that that particular feature was important to the customer. So I would look to the manufacturer, and then perhaps look at other
resources and then make that determination.

STEVE JACOBS: Thank you, Ken. Julie?

JULIE CARROLL: We have time for more questions.

STEVE JACOBS: We have time for more questions. What I thought we might do, we all realize that accessibility is important and that's why we're all
here. Usability is another term that is used that may encompass more than accessibility. Some will define accessibility as being part of
the usability equation. Designing a product that's usable globally seems to make sense, at laes for industry. How
do you think the -- at least for industry. How should a development process be approached or an assessment process be approached to include usability
on a global basis? For example, earlier Allen and I talking about designing an interface that is accessible to persons who are blind. Well, there
are people who can't read, who can also use an interface designed to talk to a person. And how can this be
taken into consideration so that economies of scale come into play when a company wishes to design usable and oh, by the way,
accessible products? Let me address this first to Dennis and then we can just go to everyone else.

DENNIS FOLDS: Thanks, Steve. I believe that the accessibility is largely an extension of usability to a more complete and diverse user population. One could
argue that making a product accessible is simply making it usable to individuals who are not normally considered as part of the user population. But they should be.
Usability is not a property of the device itself. But it's a property of a person using the device for some stated purpose, for some intended purpose. I
think you could -- if you could construe accessibility in the same way, accessibility is not an integral property of the device, but it's a property of a user with some
impairment intending to use the device or attempting to use the device for some purpose. So, as far as the achieving sort of a universal design approach or the
economies of scale for very large or mass marketing, I think it's first of all essential to conceive of the user coplation in the broadest terms. One
can identify the ranges of capabilities that are present there. And you may find some important characteristics of users that may not come under the traditional view of accessibility. I know
that I believe that it was Ken that noticed the issues with his bifocals. We don't normally think of people that are simply wearing corrective lenses as being part
of a population that is covered by the term accessibility. But that's because it's so common. If it were not for the relative frequency of this, we wouldn't think
of these as special users, as we develop products, whether they are in automobiles or airplanes or whatever, we generally consider the fact that someone might be wearing
bifocals. That is common enough that it has to be considered. So usability needs to extend to include all of the special characteristics that a diverse community of users harx, address
what are the requirements so that people with those properties can make use of the device for certain intended purposes. With that in mind, there will be a much broader market
for a product and I think the marketplace itself will sort it out from there. Young yes. I agree. I also have something to add regarding that. You said accessibility
was an extension of usability. And I agree. But I think usability is a result of accessibility. I flipped it around. In my experience in dealing with industry and particularly
software and Web Page design accessibility issues often if a developer does something to increase the accessibility of a
product, it results in increasinged usability. For example, -- increased usability. For example on a Web Page, you have graphic
pictures. And a screen reader needs to get to the information about that graphic, because the screen readers interpret page content based on textual information. So
if there is what we call an Alt attribute to a graphic, then it's accessible to a person using assistive
technology. It's also accessible to an individual using a hand held device that may access the Web. For example, a cell phone. So, for not only -- often
developers want to do the right thing, but they say well, you know, I don't know anyone with a disability in this arena or blind folks. Well, just because you make it accessible
to a person who is blind, you can increase the accessibility for all of us. All of us are potentially users of AT. One out of five individuals in the United States have a disability. So, by
the government enforcing and industry taking such a positive reaction to , it will, overall, increase the accessibility of products as a whole.
STEVE JACOBS: Thank you. Allen?

Allen: Ken may not share this opinion, because I think that his industry and members think of themselves as great innovator but I
think you guys are some of the great recyclers of all times and I mean that as a complement and I think it may have import for the question that was asked.
I was thinking, for example, of how it came to be that the PDA, personal digital assistant device, got to be integrated with a cell phone.
Or whether that happened the other way around, I'm not sure. But the fact of the matter is there was somebody who was looking at these two devices and the utility of the two devices, who
finally divided -- decide, we have these two things, why don't we put them together and see what happens. And they did. And they may have a market winner in this. And I'm thinking, it's that kind
of approach, I think, that often happens in the industry that can have some import for you, what you're talking
about, as we begin to look at what various accessible features there are and what has been done to design these features into products, and catalog and list them throughout our products. The
product developers, I expect are probably going to flip through some of the pages from time to time and say let's put and together and come up with a
brand new product, number .

STEVE JACOBS: Thank you, Allen. Terri mentioned something before that I wanted to just pick up on briefly, and that was the mention of including all
texts, makes transcoding a Web Page into wireless application protocol more accessible, using simplified English as it's described in the Web accessibility guide lanes,
also has a very powerful effect, certainly it would be easier to read for a person with cognitive disabilities. But when global companies translate
a Web Page or a website using simplified English uses about half the words, which can cut the cost of translation in half
because the cost is usually by word. And it also translates more accurately. I just got a question, this was over the telephone. No
name. No city and I can see why you didn't want to leave your name. This is for Terri. We told you this wasn't going to be easy. No  No. We don't. We didn't. A
question by phone call. Ms. Youngblood, you can tell in the beginning, he should call you Terri. Terri stated industry doesn't have knowledge to make evaluation of accessibility
of products, and that industry doesn't know how to evaluate vendors. What was this based on? A study? A survey? What?
TERRI YOUNGBLOOD: My answer is more of a clarification. I didn't say or intend to say that industry didn't know how to. Because there are a lot of
industry leaders, and I like to refer to them as the big boy, that really have an understanding of accessible technology. They have employees with disabilities.
They have knowledge. But there are a lot of smaller and middle sized companies that don't have those resources. And so if I generalized industry as a whole, not knowing,
for that I apologize. Because there are some that really understand it. I still believe that there are companies that have the in-house expertise also need to have
a third-party evaluation. Because things will go missed. I work for a large -- I worked in the past for a large manufacturer of technology, who does
internal testing. But also seeks my expertise on their accessible systems to review what they had already done. And that's just good business and
infrastructure practice in my opinion. So clarification, there is industry that knows what they are doing. But there are smaller and middle sized companies that don't and that's what TAG is here to assist and to help them. Thank you.
STEVE JACOBS: Thank you. Allen and Terri both were describing a third-party testing environment. Is there a difference in your approaches?
Allen, are you talking -- you're talking about mandatory testing, and Terri you're not? I'm addressing this to Allen. Can you clarify
what position it is you're taking or who's taking and what that position is?

Allen: I think the way we look at it is the federal government and the procuring officer and agency have the responsibility
to do this. Now, whether they want to do it using independent testing with an outside organization or do it within their agency, that is going to be
largely up to what the procuring agency wants to do and what they can do by their own internal rules and regulations. What we do say, though, is that
that process, if it is internal or external, whenever it resides, should have certain benchmarks to it, in terms of what it looks at in terms
of product accessibility. And that we think, also, that one of those benchmarks should be the involvement of customers and federal employees who are qualified as
well. I hope that answers the question.

STEVE JACOBS: It does. And I thank you.

I have one question. I think an important part of the section standard is the equivalent facilitation mechanism and I wonder how each of your
testing methodologies take into account alternatives that you might not have thought of when you were conducting the test. I'd like to hear from
Brad, Terri, Dennis and Ken.

It's an interesting concept in . I believe it was put in to allow for flexibility and perhaps innovating designs that were not particularly considered when the
standards were developed. The equivalent facilitation approach, if
a company, for example, wanted to come out and say that we have this new design. We think it's very accessible. It doesn't directly match up with the checklist items or the standards that
are in your checklist items  items. So, how can we say that it is accessible? Well, the only way, and I think the
access board would support that on the section government website, is that the only way to test that is to evaluate it against the functional performance criteria in subpart
C of section . And to me that suggests human performance testing is required to demonstrate that, yes, this product
is accessible. Users with the types of disabilities outlined in section can make use of this product in this alternate format that perhaps doesn't directly
apply to the checklist items that are standards that section require. So, I think the user and the
loop testing supports the demonstration of the equivalent of facilitation.

JULIE CARROLL: So that might be one area where the results of the checklist might be different than the user in the lap testing ! testing.

It may be that the checklist item either fails or it is not applicable to the item anymore, so that the procurement official really doesn't have any basis for making
an accessibility judgment in absence of human performance data.

JULIE CARROLL: Terri, would you agree with that?

TERRI YOUNGBLOOD: Yes. I absolutely agree with it. I would like to give a brief example of equivalent facilitation that I have run into. I ran into a computer based
training module. CD, pop it in the computer. Up comes a training manual and there is is a grafrk kal reputation of a training class there.
That graphical representation is not, this particular one, was not accessible assistive technology. For example, a screen reader used by the blind
or visually impaired. The manufacturer had already -- this is actually pre, but the story represents it. So the manufacturer got to a certain point
and said well we put all this developmental work into it. In order to make it check all the checklists that happened to be the proposed standards at the time. But in order to meet all the technical standards, we would have
to throw away the entire tool and start all over. So we said, the manufacturer of this particular CBT said let's get creative. And they looked to make the product usable,
if you do not have vision. They wanted it to be usable if you do not have a certain level of mobility et cetera, et cetera. And in fact, the result was they
incorporated voice files and keyboard accessibility. So, in fact, if you went down the checklist on the software accessibility or the software standards, it
couldn't meet them all. But if you looked at the functional performance criteria of , is it usable by at least one mode, with a user without vision, the answer was question. So, it
can be done for equivalent facilitation and I think it was put there, the ak said board's intention was to put it there as technology changes and grows,
room for innovation.

STEVE JACOBS: Any other comments from the panel?

I agree, exactly. That was the ak said board recognizing and accepting some advice from industry, for that matter, that you couldn't take
a single point in time and be able to create standards on accessibility given the industry we are addressing and the types of products and be able to provide a complete or a satisfactory
solution. So, I think we have viewed this as the window of opportunity to did I know to advance our product designs and technology. And the government was,
in its wisdom, in its innovative style, allowed that to happen. I think it was helpful and very productive.

JULIE CARROLL: But how does the template figure in equivalent facilitation? When really, you don't have to do any user testing at all to complete the template.
What you would do, what I would assume, I never actually filled out a template, is that you would take the particular section of the standard that you're addressing, and identify
in your remarks how you addressed the needs of the individual or the performance through a different means. It provides -- if anything, it's an opportunity to showcase different approaches to
addressing the same issue.

JULIE CARROLL: Thank you.

STEVE JACOBS: We received another question from the audience that is very thought provoking. It's actually from Canada. And the question is: Do any of the methodologies
attempt to go beyond section and address other countries' accessibility issue, which raises an intriguing question. It looks like maybe the
eyes of the world are looking this way to see what we're doing and how we're doing it. And maybe we should just go very quickly through the panel members to address that. Dennis?
-- I mean, Brad? Sorry.

W. BRADLEY FAIN: Putting my other hat on, I assisted it the -- in the needs assessment for the ITTATC project early on. And part of that needs assessment was a
thorough literature review that I performed, both locally and internationally, looking at the literature, seeing what guidance was out there, trying to figure out what was important what wasn't important.
Later, that served me very well in generating the checklist items that I talked about earlier. So, as new
guidelines were available, to the extent that it was available at the time that we did the literature review, which was about a year ago, things are added to the database of checklist items, if you will, I see it
as a continually evolving database. As soon as I learn about something else that is accepted as a standard or as a guideline, I consider it adding
-- I consider adding it to the checklist database that we used in our accessibility evaluation.

STEVE JACOBS: Thank you, Dennis?

DENNIS FOLDS: Yes. I'll add to that. For a given evaluation, a customer might be interested in purely section issues. However, our methodology itself is
not inherently restricted to . In fact, it is inherently as broad as a list of items can be. So
European and Canadian and other international standards become available, as they become recognized and accepted, I
believe those will be added to our database of requirements. And then it would be possible to fashion an evaluation in accordance with some other specific standard that someone else might be interested in.

STEVE JACOBS: Thank you. Terri?

TERRI YOUNGBLOOD: Yes. I agree with what he said. I know that some other countries are looking to as a model guide for them. And I think that's very crucial
in our thinking and laying out of methodology that has to include the other countries and groups as well.

KENNETH SALAETS: One of the goals of Craig Lugard is to maintain AT as quickly as possiblement and that was the intention of Congress as well in addressing section .
So knowing that the federal government will have an billion dollar market on an annual basis, the assumption is that
AT and IT manufacturers won't market slowlyly to the federal government. And that's true. The intent is to build one product and be able to sell it everywhere. ITI is committed
to not only addressing the section issue in the US, but also accessibility issues worldwide. We are part of an organization called the international information
infrastructure Congress, IIIC, that encompasses our sister associations, technology associations throughout the world, and we anticipate raising the issue of accessibility in that organization
and try to begin generating that dialog, so that there is Harmonization between countries. Ideally, you ought to be able to take your accessible laptop and be able
to use it anywhere you go, whether it's to access a wireless Web or whatever the case may be. Ideally, it will reduce costs for everybody
and it will expedite the introduction of new technology in the marketplace. So we are happy to work with our European, Japanese, Canadian friends, everyone,
we are hoping to have an international marketplace and approach on this issue.

Allen: I think that Ken is right certainly with respect to information technology. It is a global marketplace. What I would simply add is that disability is a global issue, too. It
has varying impacts in varying countries. But one of the this inks that we are noticing now with the worldwide net is that individuals with disabilities are
signing on in greater numbers and discovering information in greater numbers, and we hope that what we will be able to do is to get them to go to places like by accessible, and begin
to look at what we are doing, indeed, as a model and also to see how it can be adapted to their country and their culture.

STEVE JACOBS: Thank you. We just received another question from the field. It seems to play on Ken's mention of the word mainstreaming accessible
technology. And the question is as follows: To help convince product vendors to design new products and change their existing products so they are more accessible, it
would be helpful to have return on investment information. If the ROI is strong, then it is a simple business decision to do this extra work.
Do any of the panel members know of any accessibility return on investment or cost benefit data they can share with product vendors? Now, thank you for that very, very good question. Let's
just start back the other way, Allen?

Allen: I don't know of any specifically. But, I think that there is a lot going on that is probably going to drive us in that direction. Let me give you one example. When
the under thousand dollars computers came on the market, which was probably, what, four or five years ago now at least, one of the consulting groups that looks at marketing
took a look at who the newest purchasers of that, that is the conquest purchaser, people who never owned a computer before. Surprising statistic. The
well over half of them were individuals aged and older. Now, when someone looks at that as a new conquest market,
I think that is important. What is embedded in that, at age , you're getting close to the time when with a number of factors that are involved, you're probably not going to be able to see that screen so
well after about four or five years of the use of your computer. So I think that is going to drive some of this now.

STEVE JACOBS: Ken?

KENNETH SALAETS: I don't have any specific data but in terms of responding to the federal marketplace, when you look at a billion dollar market, I don't know if that is a cost benefit analysis, but if you
are in the business of selling technology and you want to compete, then you have to be responsive on this issue and you make your determination.

TERRI YOUNGBLOOD: I don't have anything to add. I'm not familiar with data.

DENNIS FOLDS: I'm familiar with qualitative analysis of opportunity costs if one fails to make this investment, what potential market is being lost. The data I'm more familiar
with is the projected aging population numbers. As was mentioned earlier, properties of the aging population match up
well with properties of impairments that are covered by section . And also including cognitive impairments as well. So if one looks at the projections and
the size of the aging market in the United States in particular over the next years, the opportunity costs of not being able to serve that market might be profound.

STEVE JACOBS: Thank you. And Brad?

W. BRADLEY FAIN: I of course agree with Dennis. And I believe that in performanceing the needs assessment
for ITTATC one of the most common things I'm asked is for that type of data. Do you have any hard numbers? And I truly believe they
don't exist sufficiently now. I've heard of several things, several people that have been trying to develop this number -- those numbers, but they don't have anything concrete to offer.
STEVE JACOBS: Julie in.

JULIE CARROLL: Well, I want to thank all of our panelists. We are just about out of time. I'll give you one last chance if you want to make a closing statement.

TERRI YOUNGBLOOD: I'd like to clarify something before a closing statement. Earlier, I can't remember who mentioned it.

But they referred to TAG and Georgia Tech as competing methodologies. And I wanted to clarify that that is not at all the case. TAG is actually very interested in working
directly with Georgia Tech with the methodologies for testing and hoping to develop a tight relationship between the two organizations.

STEVE JACOBS: Thank you.

JULIE CARROLL: Anyone else have any closing remarks? Young I have one more thing. I think initially, when TAG was announced,
there was a misconception, one, that it was mandatory. And, two, that it was a certification. And I think industry spoke strongly against that,
which I can understand. So I want to clarify now that I think that now that TAG is an incredible resource for government and industry that doesn't have the
skill set to do it, and it is voluntary and it's not a certain if I remember indication. It's there to assist the procurement officials and market data and it's there
to assist industry in how to make their products more usable, and that's our goal in the spirit of . And I wanted to clarify that and ask you a question, based on those clarifications, do you still feel industry
is against voluntary testing?

I don't think we ever said we are against voluntary testing. If a company believes it would be a benefit of to invite a third-party to evaluate, to
validate their own internal testing, that's what the marketplace is about. It's an option. I just think everyone needs to understand that, again, as far, if I'm a procurement
official and I'm looking for perhaps an added assurance, maybe protection in some respect from the obligations, responsibilities of section , I think there needs to be an understanding of
what it provides and doesn't provide. As far as manufacturers are concerned, I believe and I know from my own companies, my own experiences, that we
have highly qualified engineers. We do utilize people with disabilities both as our employees and in other organizations to evaluate and test our products. Think Steve can
probably address that more specifically than I could, in terms of NCR's own experience  experience. We are not operating in a vacuum. If we try to develop technology in a vacuum, it would
sit on that shelf with those vacuum cleaners that don't pick up the dust. It's a dynamic marketplace. You compete or die, and to
be competitive you have to stay at least on if not ahead of the curve. And on section we are committed to maintaining that process.

TERRI YOUNGBLOOD: I agree. I just wanted to clarify that. Thank you.

JULIE CARROLL: Well, again, I thank all of our panelists. It's been a very enlightening and thoughtful discussion. And I want to thank the audience for their participation and some great questions. I hope you will please
take a moment to look on your screen and complete the evaluation form that is there. Let us know what we can do better next time around. We will be having more webcasts. I would
also like to invite anyone out there who has methodologies or tools that they would like to share, please contact us on the contact link on our website, and
we would be happy to link to those, just to make sure resources and -- make more resources and possibilities available to everyone dealing with these
issues.

STEVE JACOBS: No closing remarks, except to thank Brad, Dennis, Terri, Ken and Allen for sharing your thoughts, opinions, and ideas with us. And our audience. It's been a pleasure
being here with you. Julie, thank you. We will have to do this again.

JULIE CARROLL: Thank you. This concludes this webcast on product accessibility evaluation methodologies. There will be future
webcasts and other types of technical assistance. You can do that by visiting our website, which is www.ittatc.org.