Session one Closed Captioning for the 2002 Accessibility Forum Meeting in Denver 

Q. Captioning on. Thank you very much. Bill, I think we are ready to roll. All right. This is going to be real interesting experience because we are going to have a project work team group meeting that is going to be video cast. So we are going to have to obey a few ground rules, unfortunately. One is we are going to have to specify our name every time we speak so that people will know who is talking because oftentimes I don’t think they will be able to capture who it is visually. I should say my name is bill and I am speaking and I am going to be your moderator for today’s session. So please, if you are going to speak, we have skipped fooling around with the microphone. Raise up your hand and I will try to get this side so we can cover both sides with microphones. The agenda for this morning is I want to do a roll call so everybody introduces themselves so we are going to be passing–we are going to do a brief agenda review so everybody understands what we are going to accomplish today. If you are interested in one thing, you are going to be switching rooms an groups an then I would like to talk briefly about what we can accomplish today and report on tomorrow. I think a lot of that comes from some presentations. I don’t see rex here, but at least REX is consistent. He has said this from the beginning, we need this and we need this now and I want to know if this is a call to arms or if we want to push back on that or what people think about his comments about what we want AT–we want them now. Then I would like to talk briefly about schedule. June gave you a schedule for the subgroup on software in OS. John who is not here right now is probably over in another group. He has not really talked about his schedule. What I would like to do is talk about the schedules that were presented and then put them up against the schedules of the accessibility forum which happens to be meeting–the next meeting is going to be June 3 to 5 in Washington DC. So if there were some way that we can affix the milestones to that schedule, it would be really useful. I also want to talk either now or later. If we are going to try to accelerate efforts or change, I want to talk about the teleconference, our good friend Dave Poehlman–maybe we better talk about a better time or more often teleconferences or whatever. I would also like to talk about another face to face before June. I think these face to face meetings are very, very good and very, very important and I think we should talk about maybe there is the possibility of meeting sometime in late April and early May and what we would like to do is do that in concert with–if we decide on that, do that in concert with the objective measures team. So that is basically what I would like to talk about today in this first hour session and now we are going to start with the introductions and SKIP can hand it that side of the room. >>: My name is Tony Pitman and I am with Madentec and I work with randy. He is preparing for his 1:00 meeting so I am here to observe and listen and take notes and comments and anything that you have for SEMI ATIA and us also but mostly to listen. >>: This is another part, we may want to tell people what the randy meeting is at some point so maybe we will call on you to summarize that. Q. I am Mitch with MINOLTA. >>: Darlene Smith with unique associates. >>: I am Larry lake with ALVA and make displays that hook into this kind of equipment. >>: June Perritt, IBM. >>: David Poehlman, council of the blind. >>: Bruce USDA target center. >>: David access board. >>: Chris. >>: Mary Beth Janes, Apple. >>: (Inaudible). >>: Bob Matthews. Thanks, hopefully we will have more–Preety has to announce herself. >>: From Deque systems. By now you have all received an agenda, hopefully one in Braille for today. Let me try to describe it. I have gone over what this session will be about. At 1:30, we are going to be basically dividing groups up according to basically ENIT products. We are going to be looking at telecommunications hosted by the objective measures group together with people from this group that are interested in telecommunications in the crystal one room. Crystal 3 room, it will be a software and operating systems, interest area or subgroup project area. From an interoperability meeting here and then at 2:15 to 3:00, we are going to switch that. We are going to talk about from interoperability from a telecommunications perspective inviting the people from the objective measures interested in telecommunication into this room. They are going to talk about objective measures from a software and operating system perspective. Now what I encourage you–however your interest is cut, if you are interested mostly in inoperability and you are interested inoperability, stay here. If you are interested in telecommunications much more so than–more so than Interoperability, then go to the objective measures group when telecommunications is discussed there and come here when telecommunications is discussed here. So you make the choices. It is all your choice. Any questions or concerns or–try to understand why we are doing this? We feel it is a great deal of overlap between the projects and we would like to encourage some sort of cooperation and we think that people need to see what is going on in the other groups and that is kind of why we are doing it. All right. I see a lot of–it is not–let’s be relaxed here, too, even though we are on TV. We can have a very relaxed and open discussion. So don’t feel that because I am standing up here with this silly microphone that I have to do all the talking. All right. Second thing is discussion of the stages presentation to the general forum. Unfortunately, John is not here. But you have heard the presentations yesterday. Are there any questions or any issues that weren’t answered in these presentations? Anything that you would like to comment on the presentations and I guess you can comment on both even though John is not here. I think there may be members of the telecommunication subgroup in the room. I don’t see anybody right now. Are there any comments on yesterday’s discussion presentations? None at all. All right. David’s got some? Dave is reserving the right to speak later. All right. Now what can we accomplish today and report on tomorrow? Now, I would like to make this–make sure these efforts are of worth to the project subgroup teams, the software and LS group or the telecommunication. So from my perspective, it is–what we want to do is either provide them with additional resources, provide them with information they haven’t–they don’t already have, provide them with suggestions that they might consider, something that will be of use to them. We don’t want these sessions to be a rehash of all the philosophical discussions that have gone on before. What we–we have a couple of sub projects, we have a couple of sub project teams working. They have objectives, they have milestones and deliverable. Some of them articulated better than others. What I would like this group to do is to contribute to that planning and the execution of those projects. So that is what I am looking for. I would also like for people in the room, if you become interested in these projects, to join the project team and Jim will say–June will say don’t join my subgroup because it is large enough already but join the project team so you can pay attention to what is going on in these various sub teams and you can begin to understand what is happening ands how the work is proceeding. We also should discuss, either today or tomorrow since we have two subgroups and we have a call to more action more quickly, do we start a third subgroup in the web area. If so, who is going to step up and take the project leadership in the web area and who is going to basically work with that project leader to begin to do the same kinds of things that June and John are doing. So that is another thing that I would like to see accomplished at this meeting. We have somebody else who is sneaking in who is going to have to introduce themselves as well. >>: I am LESLIE from the office of management and budget. >>: Do it for the microphone. >>: I am LESLIE field from the office of management and budget. >>: Welcome. All right. >>: For those that are new to the accessibility forum, when you mention things like subgroup or perhaps you say June’s subgroup and John’s subgroup and Randy’s thing, can we perhaps associate like what the name of the subgroup rather than the name of the–the individual. >>: That was very good. Thank you very much. That was excellent. The project team is assistive technology, electronic and information–electronic and information technology, interoperability. We have approximately 40 members from various groups. The project team has divided the–this charge into two major areas to concentrate on right now. June’s group from IBM is called software and operating systems. John Goldthwaite from Georgia tech area is called communication products. They are both looking at interoperability from the standpoint of software, no less, and telecommunications. In fact, June, you may want to mention who the subgroup members are. I think I can remember for John. Telecommunications is John Goldthwaite. It is Greg Vanderheiden, it is Dick Brants. It is Jeff Pledger from–the guy on TV’s boss, from web TV and TV worldwide. June. >>: June Perritt. IBM. Our new member is Chris Hofstader and Randy Marsden has just joined us. There is Paul Fontaine, Joy Relton, Mark Urban and I am just blanking, I am sorry. Forgive me. >>: I can’t remember either. >>: I got two more away, Chris. Forgive me. If I had my E-mail list, I can tell you. >>: Does everybody know how the project teams work? Pretty common. >>: I have a question. I had a question, actually. You said earlier that you would be interested in somebody taking on the web piece of this? The web projects. >>: That is a discussion that we have for the project team for people to say yes or no to. >>: The question is that our web applications being considered with software applications in OS or are they being considered in the web arena because that is an overlap. >>: I think that is the nub of the question and the issues involved with the web. That is part of the–Dave Poehlman has a comment. >>: This is Dave Poehlman with the American council of the blind. When we established the subgroups, we tried to do it along the lines of the divisions of the section 508 standards and section 508 standards specifically designed for the web. And when the initial survey went out about the web and initial questioning went out about how we should treat the web, one of the things we had to decide was what were the priorities for involving the number of people we had and how, you know, how best to at least begin to break things down and begin to move forward. The web being left out of it does not mean that the web is not appropriate for subgroup, necessarily. But that it was felt that the areas that had the most impact at the time that needed to be started as soon as possible and that also had the most expertise available to it at the time, if I understand this correctly. If I am remembering this incorrectly, somebody can tell me. I am sure Bill will. The two telecommunications and software and operating systems. So that is why where we are where we are with this. That is sort of what this project team is. A project team in the forum, overall, is a way to provide a deliverable on a group of issues or on an issue and those are–the strategic management council, which I am also a member, devises those. We sit down and decide what is appropriate to come together with a project–for a project team. The first two project teams are objective measures and interoperability because they were the hottest topics at the time. There are going to be a lot more project teams and how they are done and scoped out and set up are going to depend on the nature of the projects that they are oriented around. Interestingly enough, our two project teams both have taken similar structures. They have both broken down in smaller groups to deal with issues. That is a good way to deal with issues but there might be a situation or two or several where we will have a project team which will not have to break down into several groups, which will just deal with its set of issues. So that is all I have to say for now. >>: Like real quickly, we have a couple of introductions because people came in and then we have Tim Creagan. >>: Tim Creagan self help for hard of hearing people. >>: Marney Beards, Sun Microsystems. >>: Thanks a lot. To answer your question directly, the issue you raise is the issue that our respondents did on the quick and dirty survey. We are not convinced that–it was a design issue or software OS, it wasn’t really web issue. So what we have to discuss, that is the first order of business for a subgroup would be to say okay, is this really interoperability issue or is it not. If it isn’t, let’s get rid of it and go to somewhere else. If it is, try to solve it and that is the idea. Make sense? All right. See what I have on my notes. Oh, I want to get people’s reactions to rex’s comments. Not because I want people to criticize REX but I think he is concerned about the pace at which we are moving and I think there is two questions, one is what is feasible to do and what is necessary to do. I think what he is talking about to some extent is–I don’t know if it is what is necessary or what they would like to see from an industry standpoint but what I am concerned about is what is feasible for this group to accomplish given the time line that we have. I think that I should address to June because I think he is talking mostly about the software and OS area. You want to– >>: This is June Perritt IBM. I understand rex’s concerns. Any time you do something with 30 or 40 people, it is a lot slower than if you do it with 3 people. It would be nice for us to have all the answers that we need yesterday. But I still think that it is also good to get input that takes a–it is a little slower, but in the end, we will end up with shotgun that is more usable for everyone more agreed to. I am sorry. Okay. I feel his same frustrations at times. You feel that things aren’t moving as fast as they could. But I think in the environment we are in, if we look at any other consortium type group, if you look at W 3 C and how long it takes for them to get something out of a subcommittee and through the entire organization, I believe that, for example, the two old rules are not yet out. It just takes a long time to work through a lot of folks and so I am not too concerned that we are not moving as fast as maybe we feel like we could. I will tell you that I think we have to come to conclusion on some of these things in the next 6 to 8 months. If we are still at the same stage we are now, then we have not made progress and we have to make progress. I want to give the floor to Dave. >>: Thanks, June. The mention of the W 3 C sparks something in me and I guess we can start it here and I will be here for the groups switch this afternoon. So I will bring it up there, too. It is a little bit of a sideline but it actually goes towards answering this question. I agree with June. I think that this is not going to be a fast, quick and easy fix. There is a lot of work to be done and–but that there are some deliverables that we can probably identify and put out within a relatively short period of time. Not one month necessarily or two or three months but 6 to 8 months should be plenty of time to put something out to show that there is activity and there are some things going on. We would like input into that process. We would like to find out where the hottest issues and take those hottest issues–not that we don’t know some already–but take those hottest issues and find out and try to figure out what the easiest of those issues are to deal with and then maybe we can work on providing a deliverable, you know, begin to prioritize and provide a deliverable for those. This may also mean that it goes back to setting up some other–another team. Another team and calling it something else besides interoperability but still focus on the issues that comes out of the interoperability requirements or needs. But what I was going to side track with in just a moment is that we have been invited by the user agent guidelines working group for the W 3 C to share with them a dialogue on interoperability in the sense that the user agents guideline working group of which I am a member are working on requirements that–or standards–guidelines, there we go, guidelines that should be finished sometime this year. But the guidelines are finished. We are going through an implementation process and it is a W 3 C process that takes some time. This is the kind of certification process except it is more–it is not a standard certification process. But it is the kind of certification process that we are talking about this morning that takes some time. We are very interested in and open to discussing our concerns with you–with members of this project team and also, you know, where it relates to software and operating systems and also sharing some of our knowledge and experience that we have gained over the last four years of putting this document together and working with industry and al gill man, who is a member of this subgroup is also a member of the subgroup that–I mean, of the user agent guidelines working group. That is why I can’t come to the telephone calls because we have been meeting at the same time. So I haven’t been able to meet with you all by telephone but I have been avidly reading the E-mails. But we would like you to consider that and we have information that we can embark. Some of the things that we are doing may help this group in moving some of the issues forward. Thank you. >>: Okay. I think that is a good point that we do need better integration with the W 3 C. Let me go through my issues kind of one by one. We have another forum that will be scheduled from the 3 to the 5th. What I would like to see at that forum is some tangible results coming out of the sub teams. So what I have asked June and if John were here, I would ask John. June, you gave us a schedule yesterday– >>: Sorry. That was not agreed to by my team. I made that up all by myself. >>: I understand. So how about if you put more pressure on your team and say is there some way we can move the deliverable up to, June. >>: I would be glad to ask them. >>: If you need additional resources, I think we can talk about how we can get those resources that you can use either forum staff members or other groups. So okay. That is agreement? >>: Sure. >>: It is easy now. >>: Yea, exactly. We will be glad to investigate that. How is that? >>: Okay. The second issue I am sure John will say the same thing, we will see. The next comment I had is that I think that if the fast track is a reasonable approach to identifying interoperability solutions or at least work around that maybe we ought to consider use of–we all heard from randy that problems are getting AT vendors at any one place at any one time. Well, there is an opportunity because C sum is coming up. Should we explore with randy the idea of using a similar kind of activity at C SIM one or two to do the same thing that he is doing two doors down here. Would that be a reasonable approach? A reasonable thing. We have some AT vendors in the room. >>: My belief is that rather than us saying why don’t we do something at C sun, why don’t we have randy and Chris and folks tell us where is the next place that they would be likely to attend and try to make it some place where it would be natural and normal for them to gather. Because otherwise, you are still asking small companies to send people to places that maybe they can’t afford to do that. >>: Right. My assumption was C sun was such a place. >>: Maybe if you want to make that assumption. >>: Okay. For me, for Alva, our engineers are in Holland. So to get them out here for this session, it is pretty much impossible. But they do go to C sun. So for addressing those issues, at least for our people, it is–the big events is where we can pull our people over. Just for the smaller manufactures in all likelihood, they will be at C sun, too. >>: So maybe one of the charges is to talk to randy today and see if we can’t come up with a schedule to try to schedule something at C sun for similar kind of activity. >>: Hi it is Chris. I think C sun is probably a good idea. I can’t personally attend but I can certainly be on the phone. Almost everyone is there from even the really small AT vendors tending to be there. But the one–and just sort of potential problem with C sun is that C sun is three days long and almost all of the AT vendors are there but they are jammed up with meetings. I mean, that is for the AT people. So people tend to already have pretty full schedules. So it might be too late to schedule something at a C sun because people’s agendas are already going to be very, very well packed. I think you would have to do a survey first and see how many can actually–even if they are there–break away. >>: Randy is good at E-mail service so we can probably do that. We will approach the idea to him and see whether or not it is feasible. Okay. Was there a comment over here? >>: TONY PITTMAN. All these comments on randy an make sure that he understands the goal is to get a lot more interaction from AT and I am sure he would be excited to hear that. >>: Without prejudice, too. Right? >>: Without prejudice. >>: Thank you. Let’s see. What else did I have? I really don’t have–we haven’t discussed what we should be reporting on Friday and I think that is sort of what we should accomplish in the next couple of days and I hate picking on June again. I don’t think–but I think since this is her project subgroup, software and operating systems, maybe I can get out of her what she thinks we should accomplish with this group and what we should be reporting on Friday. >>: Who is the different audience for Friday that we did not report to yesterday? There is nobody different. I think it would be the same except that the web cast–it is sort of like last time where we had the–we expected more people on the web cast the last day and it actually turned out that way. This time we are web casting the whole thing so it is not fundamentally different. >>: My belief is that we as a subgroup aren’t going to have anything in addition to report that we basically did yesterday, which is what our main topics are. What a basic schedule is and that we have to take the next step to take the next level of information and until Chris and randy and I incorporated actually do that via E-mail, I don’t know that there is any new news. That is all. >>: So what you are looking to get out of this is additional information to help you fill out the outline that you have already–that you have started for this group or what was your expectations over the next two sessions. >>: I would like to hear people’s view of whether or not there are areas they think we have missed so far. Do they have a view on whether or not there is something that they would like us to include in use of product evaluation copies? So if there are things that you would like us to consider as a subgroup that you have in your mind, I would like–this seems to me to be the forum and the table to go do that to get that input that says, you know, you guys did okay as far as you took it but you are missing three things here. So I really would like you to take this and, A, beat us up and the other thing is to tell us your view on what ought to be there. Let’s just say primer. If you have a view of what should be in that primer, tell me. Tell Chris and I at this point and consequently what we can–we will then consider that thing that is we might not have considered had someone not brought it up. >>: So what we will end up with Friday is a list of things in developing this. >>: That is possible. >>: Good. That sounds reasonable to me. Does anybody have a concern with that or an issue with that? Have a discussion of that? >>: Tony Madentec. My comment slash question is maybe I should give a little introduction about this randy thing that Chris mentioned. Randy as a representative of ATIA is taking the opportunity of this forum and having people here and people in the conference call. Yesterday we had a meeting at 1:00 where he introduced a survey that we have put out that discusses from the AT side of things what are our concerns within our operating with the IT side of things and then we are going to prioritize that, which he did last night and this morning and today at 1:00 we are having a follow up meeting to say the results of the surveys or these items are the most important to us as AT vendors. I need to ask the group here–I know that randy is reporting on that tomorrow morning, is that a report to this group? Or to the whole forum? >>: The whole forum. But we have considered a report to this group because I think it is consistent with our subgroups and our subgroup activities. >>: The reason I bring this up now is because we are talking about what are we going to report on Friday so I just wanted to point that that is probably going to be one of the things that we report on then. >>: That is excellent. >>: That is all. >>: That is a major portion of what we report on. That will be very good. Real quickly, I put up on the board the reporting requirements that are–these are suggested from. I just want everybody to know that these are the suggested reporting requirements from the strategic management council. They are going to expect from the project teams a monthly report on deliverables, the plan in the upcoming month, potential obstacles we have identified and resources used, including the technology representation, et cetera and they want that the last weekday of every month. So clearly, they have been concerned about projects and they are pushing us towards milestones and --. I think it is quite reasonable. We have a documented CD that does not have dates right now. Her going to be updated with dates once we get feed back. I want everybody to know that this is what–I think the strategic management council is going to see this and I see no reason why we shouldn’t post this project to the web site for everybody to–it is like we have some equipment around here–so this is the reporting. I think there is additional–no, this is not really important. Preety is actually a member of the committee. So if you want more information about this reporting requirement, but that is just what we are going to have to begin to adhere to and what we would like to do is begin to fill out this–whatever we get from the strategic management council and maintain that on our web site. You just arrived just in time. Unless there are other issues and other concerns and other things that we need to talk about, we are at 12:15? We don’t have to. If people don’t want to go to 12:15, we don’t have to. Do people have issues they want to discuss at this meeting or do they want to continue to go to lunch and come back for the software and operating system? I don’t see any reason–I think we have come to some agreement as to what we are going to present tomorrow and what we are trying to do today and we–I think we have talked about what the project team has done so far. If people have not really familiar with the project team and what we have been doing and have questions now, we will answer them. But otherwise, I think we are ready to break. There is one comment or question. You are right on time, Bill. >>: Hi David with the access board. I am here primarily as an observer but I had one point of information that might be of interest to you. I have been to C sun before and I would say at best they might have had one or two vendors there representing products for people with hearing disabilities and at best they might have had one or two workshops on the agenda related to their interest. And I don’t believe that any members of ATIA are vendors for people with hearing disabilities, those kinds of products. And of course I don’t believe there is any participating with the accessibility forum. So when you consider interoperability issues, consider things beyond some of the examples that you are envisioning right now because you may be missing a sector and it could come back to you at some point later on when you experience the problems. >>: Just to emphasize that that is the largest of all physical disability groups. >>: Thank you, David. We have sparked some comments. >>: Just picking up on what David started, I am Tim Creagan for self help of hard of hearing people. At the end of the session, I was talking to the–I am not remembering her name. She has also been to C sun and she is headquartered in San Jose and she has done work on disability issues. Recently at the last conference they didn’t have accommodations for people with hearing loss. So the point would be that you are looking for people that are going to identify and help you isolate issues in the disability community, you may have to cast a wider net when you look for people. >>: We now have two microphones. >>: The person that you were referencing is CYNTHIA WADDELL, I believe. Okay. You probably know who I am. I am Bill LaPlant and if you have been in the forum, I won’t have to repeat how I am involved. One of the–as you know, there is a short-term project that is going on right now. Stopgap, quick turn around experiment. There is also a long term project that is going on that is really not part of the accessibility forum. And I wanted to bring that up because we are at the point in the agenda, as Bill said, talking about other topics and I do want you to be aware of exactly how the work of insights V 2 meshes with what we are up to. Now, insights V 2 is working on a protocol. Now a protocol is a general set of guidance for how things–intelligent things communicate. This protocol, called the alternative interface access protocol, is concerned about how intelligent things intercommunicate with us. Human beings. Not just, you know, the average person or the implementers idea of who the average person is, but everybody specifically those with disabilities. Insights V 2 is not created by insights in response to 508. It was created by insights in response to a study that was done by the information technology accommodation study group that insights had created to look at the need for the information technology industry to work nice with assistive technology and, you know, are there problems here and so forth. Guess what? We found–surprise! -There are problems. Is there technology that could do something about that potentially? Yes. There are lots of things going on that potentially could do something about it. But it is not open technology and therefore, it is specific to a vertical market, typically, or to a particular product set. And a lot of people would like to–who are profoundly disabled–would like to be able to work in other sorts of environments. In addition, the made world–that is everything that is created–more and more of the made world has intelligence embedded in it. For most of us who have full vision and full manipulation capability and so forth, the fact that how you control your oven and how you set the temperature on your thermostat for heat and so forth is done with a touch pad and a display screen isn’t a problem. But if you are blind or you are in a wheelchair or you have–you don’t have fine motor control, it is then obviously an issue. So we are busily trying to create a protocol that will allow all of us–everyone–to take advantage of all the good work that is being done in 508, but have it real easy to have all of this stuff work on each other. That is one of the things that you can do with layered protocols. This is a layered protocol that we are talking about. One of the layers is something called the alternative access interface mark up language, which will actually separate content from presentation. If this sounds familiar, that is the kind of language that the worldwide web community talks about. But this is directed for everything that interfaces together. While we are using the base languages and base protocols of the Internet, it is not intended that this be limited for that. It is intended that in the smallest case, that a very, very simple device will be able to talk to a more complicated, but special purpose device without any problem at all and automatically be able to do the exploration and so forth and so on that is needed. To give an analogy, we have very, very cheap fax machines now because fax machines are around the world. Well, fax machines can talk to any other fax machine. The way they do this is they handshake with each other, initially, to find out what the various services that the two devices can handle. And they sort of negotiate with each other and then come to an agreement and then they send stuff off and the receiving fax says, I got that part and so forth. We are using that analogy, if you will, for putting together the AAIP. And I invite you all–all of you–to look at, very actively, what we are doing. We have descriptions out there on the table. This is, in my opinion, this is going to be the answer to the question of how do we get engineers hooked into this. This specification will allow you to sick your engineers on this and have them worry about making sure that the interfaces work well and all of that kind of stuff, okay. It is going to take all of us working together to have this work well. But this is where we can really play in terms of having interoperability happen. >>: And you thought we were going to get to lunch early. See what happens? A quick note, David, isn’t there an augmentative communications association that is like an ATI for the hearing impaired that we can propose a similar kind of activity with? >>: Two David’s. >>: Or Tim can answer as well, I think. >>: Tim, do you want to answer it? >>: This is Bill. The question is, TIM, we talked about using C sun as getting some ATIA members and David said that C sun was not a place where the people assistive technology for the hearing. So is there an alternative association or conference that we should go to for that? >>: I was sitting here writing it down. I was going to give it to June after the meeting but let me throw out a couple. SHHH is having its annual conference in SEATTLE Washington from June 26 to 27. It is the end of June. Telecommunications for the deaf. TDI. They have their conference, I believe, in the fall. I don’t have a location or a date for that. But that is another one that you can check. I would be glad to give you the information on that when I get back. The other one, I think is a big one, would be a conference called deaf way 2, which is something that is held every several years and it is going to be held, I believe, in Washington this time in the summer. I don’t have a date. Do you have a date? That is something else that you can check out. >>: First of June. June second or third. >>: That sounds right. And the deaf–let me make a distinction here. I have talked about the distinction between the needs of deaf individuals and hearing individuals. So you need to go to both. You need to go to deaf way and you also need to go to SHHH and you also need to probably check in with TDI because TDI has equipment. That is what their focus is whereas if you go to conferences, you are going to be able to talk to the attendees and say what works for you, what do you need, what do you want? You are going to get different responses from different populations at the conventions. >>: Hi my name is Bruce with the USDA target center. There is one more group and that deals within the government arena itself. It is called the deaf and hard of hearing in government. DHHIG. They were holding annual conferences at the NIH, national institute of health. They ran into some funding problems ands so now they are going every other year. That is a very intensive forum. It is usually held with four to six hundred deaf and hard of hearing within the federal government. I believe they are planning on their next conference in March of next year. Sometimes in the past that conference has conflicted with C sun. >>: Okay. Excellent. Real quick point, Tim. We have members from TDI who is not here at the time. So we have had some contact. We have obviously had contact with SHHH as well. >>: (Inaudible). >>: This is David again. The accessibility forum has a national association of the deaf. In addition to other consumer groups, it will be important to bring this issue up within the forums of the audiology associations. ASHA and the American speech hearing association and triple A, American academy of audiology. They both have major conventions and they need to be thinking about how they have their hearing aids and also COCHLEAR implants, there are associations with that as well and how those interface with things like telephones. >>: We have made contacts with ASHA and some of the other groups, which we have, not so far received cooperation. If you have names of individuals, give them to me afterwards and we will pursue those folks. Thank you. As I said, there goes your early lunch. I appreciate this. We are going to be meeting back here at 1:30 for looking at software and operating systems. We are going to be going through the outline that June presented and discussing what we have hit, what we have missed and your ideas on each of those items. So thank you very much.