Title Slide: Project Consolidation and Voting
Paul Mitten
Compusult, Ltd.
Assistive Technology Industry Association

Slide 1: Project Identification History
May Forum Meeting Breakout Sessions
    60 project ideas generated by 4 breakout sessions
    Project Identification Team formed
Original document distributed to team May 16
    Single list of all project ideas
Original document redistributed with unique identification numbers May 20
    Provides an audit trail for initial ideas

Slide 2: Project Consolidation Team
Marci Keiser – PSINet
Bill LaPlant – Census
Sharon Laskowski – NIST
Rex Lint – ITAA
Paul Mitten – ATIA
Ken Otten – ADA Compliance 
June Perritt – IBM 
Jill Thomas – Ion Systems 
Jim Tobias – Inclusive Technologies
Janina Sajka – AFB
Mark Urban – NCITSv2
Michael Takemura – Compaq Computer
Gregg Vanderhieden – TRACE Center
Accessibility Forum Staff
Bill Hetzner
Jim Kindrick
Phil Rosche

Slide 3: Project Consolidation History
Initial categorization/groupings May 25
    Identified 4 broad categories of projects
Consolidation of items suggested during Project Team conference calls June 1 - 11
    Reduction of 60 ideas to 13 project topics
Editorial work and final ballot produced based on Project Team e-mail discussion June 15
Ballot distributed to General Forum Membership in July

Slide 4: Project Ballot: 13 Candidates in 4 Categories
Survey of Existing Knowledge, Strategies, and Commercial Product Features
    7 candidate projects
Interoperability/Compatibility of AT and Commercial E&IT Products
    1 major project
Tools and Measures 
    3 candidate project
Providing Information to/from the Access Board and/or GSA
    2 candidate projects

Slide 5: Who Voted?
Vendors
    EIT Vendors: 34 responses, 51% overall
    AT Vendors: 7 responses, 11% overall
Users
    9 responses, 14% overall
Academic, Research, and Standards
    11 responses, 16% overall
Government
    5 responses, 8% overall

Slide 6: Ballot Count Graph
Description: 
The Ballot Count Graph is a pie chart showing the number of people who voted from each stakeholder category. 
The responses were from 66 total people:
    29 (or 43%) from Electronic and Information Technology product vendors, system integrators, and web developers
    7 (or 11%) from Assistive Technology product vendors and integrators
    9 (or 14%) from the User Community end user representatives and user advocacy groups
    16 (or 24%) ARS Academic and other researcher specialists in accessibility
    5 (or 8%) from Government Representatives of Federal Government agencies 


Slides 7 and 8: Forum Stakeholders
EIT Vendors
    Hardware manufacturers, software developers, system integrators, web services, IT consulting, and providers of other IT support devices. 
AT Vendors
    Vendors and integrators of Assistive Technology (AT) including any equipment commonly used to enhance functional capabilities of individuals with disabilities.
Users
    End users and their advocacy groups are members and/or representatives of the community of people with disabilities. 
Academic, Research, and Standards
    Academic and other Researchers specializing in accessibility, and representatives of Standards making bodies related to EIT accessibility and/or AT interoperability.
Government
    Representatives of Federal Government agencies.

Slide 9: ‘Big Winners’
2 projects were clear favorites
    Project 8: Enhance AT/EIT Interoperability
    Project 11: Enhance the Availability of Objective Measures
Received votes from every stakeholder group
Fundamental, unifying, and mission critical

Slide 10: ‘Runners Up’
5 additional projects were favorably rated in this order
    Project 3: Inventory AT
    Project 10: Inventory Assessment Tools
    Project 4: Inventory User Requirements
    Project 7: Index of Technical Resources
    Project 6: Standard Terminology Glossary
4 of these 5 received votes from every stakeholder group
Potential building blocks for the ‘Big Winners’

Slide 11: ‘Also Ran’
6 Projects received less interest
    Project 13: GSA/Access Board Communication Channels
    Project 1: Inventory Accessibility Features
    Project 5: Identify Important Consumer Product Features
    Project 9: Vendor 508 Template Review 
    Project 2: Inventory Consumer Report Information
    Project 12: Clarification from GSA/Access Board

Slide 12: Project Relationships
Apparent relationships exist between individual projects
    Feedback from Forum membership
‘Big Winners’ appear to have some interdependency with the ‘Runners Up’

Slide 13: Discussion