Home → Accessibility → Information Technology IT Accessibility Committee (ITAC) → Meeting Notes → February, 2003
February, 2003Val, Carolyn, Kathy, Lori, Floyd, Pauline, Mary, Gil
Val discussed agenda changes and it was agreed that sub-committee must report back to the full committee on a regular basis and should have plans in place to show how they will be accomplishing their mission.
Discussion then focused on current chartered committees and work outstanding.
Membership Sub-committee – They agreed to meet on the 10th of March to follow up on their work.
Initial Outcomes of that Meeting
Formal term limit process will not be adopted. Annually (in December) letters will go out to members asking if they plan on continuing through the next calendar year.
In December the sub-committee will solicit feedback and determine if the full committee should continue with having a chair.
When members leave, new members will be recruited that will be able to support the areas that the existing member covered.
A second meeting will be held on March 17th at 4:00 to review the roles of community seats and an advisory group.
Policy Review Sub-committee – Joyce Kennedy and Delores Crocker agreed to participate in the end of the work for this committee which was determining how those managing contracts could test and demonstrate accessibility compliance. A meeting was
scheduled for March 6th. Previous policy changes that were completed by Floyd White, Kelly Hokkanen (InforME), and Mike Francoeur will be sent to the Committee and discussion scheduled for April meeting.
Notes from meeting with Floyd, Joyce and Delores:
Where should the benchmarks for accountability be in the process?
Floyd White or designee should be involved from the beginning of any project.
We agree that current software standards should be used.
The software tool to be used for testing is only a part of the issue, the processes and procedures for Project Managers in relationship to ADA and their accountability need to be addressed.
There should be an ADA requirement in RFP with an appendices of the ADA Standards that must be signed by the vendor and submitted with their proposal. (Contract Review Committee should review RFP for inclusion before allowing release to the public).
RFPs and Evaluation materials could be structured to award more points for initial vendor compliance with the accessibility standards. Proposals with products that are not in compliance or do not contain a plan to reach compliance should be rejected.
During negotiations or prior to Contract signing. Package Validation testing will be performed for packages. The testing will include ADA standards testing, and any deficiencies will be noted.
If there is a demo, or presentation by the vendor, that would be a good time for Floyd or designee to do a presentation of the standards with a scripted description of the issue of accessibility (to give them a context in which to approach the standards).
There should be an ADA clause in BIS contracts tying back to the RFP requirement and tasks in the Contract work plan requiring specific testing related to the ADA standards at every stage, all along the implementation or development path, beginning with the initial prototype. (Contract Review Committee should review the Contract for its inclusion.)
Money should be tied to the deliverable which is the vendor’s compliance with ADA standards.
Big question: who and/or what entity will actually check off on the accessibility standards? Problems: money, location of testing (Floyd thinks it should be on-site), personnel (even if interns are used, someone needs to train and oversee them, and interns are notoriously transient)
Procurement Sub-committee – This Committee will meet when Policy Committee finishes its work.
Accessible Web Design Sub-committee – Mary will get status.
Status: This charter needs to be reworked due to conflicts with workloads of those planning to chair and support it. It was suggested though that the survey be sent out through the webmasters’ forum as at the last meetings InforME has focused on accessibility issues. Mary will speak to Kelly about this proposal and bring it back to the committee.
Suggestion for full sub-committee reports: I suggest that given we will have a lot to discuss and review with Jan during the March meeting, that we table the sub-committee status discussion until April at which time they can all report back fully. Mary
Discussion on financial status of Committee: What have we spent and what is left in the account? Details sent onto Val but summary was that out of $50,000 we have $44,400.50 left.
Should we contract services in order to review web accessibility compliance? Have we yet identified the areas that will provide us the biggest return on our dollars? How do we get the names of contract managers of products that are not known to be accessible and what is the process to keep tabs on status of product compliance?
Suggestions for allocation of funds:
Use DAFS as pilot for all of state to make model for what software/websites are accessible. What products are coming into compliance? Put in application for intern and work plan for that person to meet this objective. Val will do application and send it around for review. What is the deadline for that? Mary will help.
There is a tool that will convert PDFs, should we buy that? Floyd will find out what the product is.
Gil discussed the work DOE is doing to ensure accessibility of the No Child Left Behind software. Gil is crafting language to be put into the contract that states accessibility testing must occur during development rather than waiting for the final product.
Annual Report Distribution – Mary sent the online version to Floyd for testing. His comments were reviewed and incorporated and it was also sent onto Pauline for feedback. Have not received that yet but it is posted. Mary was asked to create a cheat sheet for who already has that report, and, has not completed that…