FCC - vpaac4 - home

soilkinkajouInternet and Web Development

Feb 2, 2013 (4 years and 8 months ago)

132 views

You are connected to event:

FCC



Themes:


















Font Size:




























Font Family:


















Background:


































Text Color:


































Scroll:






Hodges Louis her regard a.

>>
Test test Allison. Nep lock nep loak and.

>> SUSAN: Kimmel and. Consumer and governmental affairs bureau krg krg fk
American council of the blind Comcast and consumer electronics association.

>> MARK: Dawson. Cantrell.

>> JEFFREY: And.

>> JOHN: Echo star e
cho star name noam name ohm I black. Noam noam Jacobs.










































>> STEVE: Blank page blank.












































mark Walter.

>> Hello?

>> Hello.

>> Hello.

>> Wow, quite a chorus out there. Okay, this i
s Susan, and I just initiated the call, so
why doesn't everybody identify themselves so we know who's here.

>> John herzack FCC.

>> Hi, John.

>> (inaudible) Google.

>> Adam Goldberg, rovey.

>> Jeff canfill, bright house.

>> (inaudible) Microsoft.

>> SUSAN
KIMMEL: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that last one
--

>> Je, Laura Ruby.

>> ALISON NEPLOKH: Hi, Lori.

>> Shane Feldman from NAD.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Hi Shane.

>> This is Steve Jacobs from ideal group.

>> Hi, Steve.

>> Jeff Newdeck from Motorola.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL:
Hi.

>> Mark (inaudible) Sony.

>> Hi, mark.

>> Andy Skel (inaudible).

>> Ann Marie Roheli Microsoft.

>> John (inaudible) with Echostar.

>> Hi.

>> Karen (inaudible)
--

>> KEN:
--

Google.

>> Ken is using an interpreter.

>> Okay.

>> Thank you.

>> Did we miss a
nybody?

>> Steve Watson with Cox communications.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Hi. Steve. Well, this is quite a crowd we have here today.
That's terrific. I thank you all for calling in. We might wait a few minutes for some
more people to join us. (beep) Hello?

>> Good

morning. (inaudible) can you hear me?

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yes, I can hear you. I didn't catch your name, though
--

>> This is Heather
--

(inaudible).

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Heather, okay. Well, welcome.

>> HEATHER: Thank you.

>> So Jeff has informed me that he is
watching a sick child today and so was not able
to host the meeting, and I am going to fill in for him the best I can. I must admit that I
am not quite prepared for this, but we do have some material here to start with, and I
don't know if people have had
a chance to look at what was sent out already. It was
really just earlier this morning. One thing was Jeff had done
--

revised the outline, or
the table of contents, actually, to the report that had been prepared by working group
1, and tried to adapt it f
or our working group, and I just wondered if people had
comments on that.

And then the other thing is the outline that Heather sent, which had sort of more
substantive material in terms of how to apply the statute, particularly for
--

as it
related to hear
ing issues, I think (beep) how the subgroup 1 identified the problems
that they were trying to tackle.

>> And those were sent via email and not posted to the Wiki; is that correct? This is
Steve Jacobs.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yes, that is correct, Steve. They ho
pefully will be put on the
Wiki but they're not there yet.

Okay. So let's start with the table of contents that was an adaptation of the working
group 1's report. Did
--

(beep) anyone
--

I think we just had a couple more people join
(beep). If you just got

on the phone.

>> This is (inaudible) I had dropped off and I am back in.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay. But let's just start by asking if people had a chance to
look at that and if there are any sort of general comments to be made.

>> HEATHER: This is Heather
--

oh, go ahead.

>> I'm sorry, Heather. This is Jeff. I just thought I'd give a little more background on
what I did here. So
--

and sorry about the not hosting today. I guess my main concern
is background noise with a down and out 2
-
year
-
old in the backgroun
d. But
--

so what
I did here is started off with, you know, a report that's already been submitted to the
FCC and working group 1's report, and began to, you know, modify the content and
the general outline to fit our purposes. So I've put together an intr
oduction section that
I thought was, you know, a little more applicable for our purposes, and actually tried
to modify it such that, you know, at the end of the day we're going to have a final
report that's going to include working groups 2, 3 and 4 for su
bmittal to the FCC. So I
tried to just treat this as almost a template that we could use that would be able to pull
in all the various working group inputs, because really at the end of the day that's our
final objective, right?

And then starting off, I ha
d an introduction section. In some discussions we had with
some of the FCC co chairs, just over all work VPAAC, there was comments from the
working group 1 report, that while the history was
--

provided a lot of interesting
background and what not, the rea
l meat that the FCC was interested in was more in a
final
--

you know, technical content that followed. So I went in and stripped out the
history section altogether. I'm wide open, though, if people think at the end of the day
that provides some good backg
round for hard work and provides value and include it
in the report, we could certainly pull that back in.

From there, I had some different sections. First I thought I'd include a working group
for charter objectives and guidelines, including, you know, se
ctions out of the
--

the
CBAA itself, and then highlighting, you know, what we used in guidelines being
sections 204 and 205 in particular and really just pulling in the various quotes from
those sections that
--

sort of as guidelines for our work, and the
n going forward from
there, have a user interface accessibility, (inaudible) and functional requirements
section, and broke that down into several different, I guess, sections based on the
outline that we started with.

What we originally had were general r
equirements, user input, user feedback. I
changed those just a bit to be configuration, because most of the requirements we
ended up with, at least from subgroup 3, had to do with configuration, you know,
setting up of a user interface to meet the accessib
ility needs of the end user. Then a
user input and user feedback section, and then finally a general recommendations
section of just, you know,
--

a set of recommendations that we would recommend to
the group that could be utilized to optimize the end user

experience.

And then I started from there going into the various, you know, functional
-
level
requirements that we started talking about in subgroup 3, and Heather, I took your
inputs and tried to include those as well within
--

you know, within that
--

th
ose
different sections. You had given some pretty good examples, I thought, in particular
related to persistence. So I tried to include those. Those are actually included in an X
-
-

revision 2 of that document, and Susan, I'm afraid I wasn't able to get th
at out until
just before the meeting. I'm not sure if you have that in email, but if you could help
me with distribution of that through the group. That's where I included all of Heather's
input.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yes, I actually just see that now. So yes,
I can forward that to
the group.

>> JEFF: That would be great.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: I don't think I had realized the extent to which you had
actually gone into the text and incorporated some of these things in. So now what you
were just describing I think is o
n page 9, on configuration and then user input and user
feedback. So these are some of the
--

put in more of the substantive issues that had
been raised in the subgroups and put it
--

used it
--

put it into this framework, which
does look like it will be v
ery helpful. I'm not sure if you went further to the technical
requirements section. That to me looks like it's more the one from the original
working group 1, or have you made any modifications in that part? Well, Jeff, I don't
know if you heard me.

>> JE
FFREY: Oh, I'm sorry, I'm talking to a muted phone. You're absolutely right for
the technical requirements section and everything after is (inaudible) right from
working group 1's report. I didn't touch any of that. Number one, I quite frankly ran
out of t
ime, and No. 2, really at this point I wanted to kind of start picking people's
brains in the working group and see if you think this is on
--

this is on the right track,
does everybody agree with this type of outline and format? Or any comments that
every
body would like to see?

>> (inaudible) to John (inaudible).

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Go ahead.

>> JOHN: This is John card. Jeff, I think the outline overall is excellent starting point,
in fact, might serve as a good final outline. We have some additional informat
ion that
has been shared amongst subgroup 3 members or even between subgroups 2 and 3
that may turn out to be useful, that it occurs to me may belong in things like an
informational annex. I believe there are some charges to the VPAAC, for example, for
us
to include in our report lists of standards and so forth, and I don't see a place in
your outline, and I think that's fine, for us to talk directly about standards, but it
seemed
--

and, in fact, I don't think the FCC will be able to quote directly from th
em.
But it seems as though if we have relevant information in that area, something like an
informational annex might be a useful way to include that.

Also, I do think at some point, maybe after the first draft of the report is done or after
the final outli
ne is ready, we ought to go back, reread sections 204, 205 and make sure
we are, in fact, answering the specific questions that are asked in 204 and 205 in terms
of being able to (inaudible) channels or play back recorded content, et cetera. I think
we may

well be, but it seems like a good check on the outline to make sure that we've
actually answered those particular halls in legislation. So overall I like the outline very
much (sounded like halls).

>> NAOMI: This is Naomi. I have a question. I think I'm a

little bit confused. Has
everybody previously seen the draft this Jeff sent out or am I
--

I just
--

it just hit my
in box now and it's a 30 page document. Are we all talking about the one that Jeff just
sent out or are we talking about the outline that S
usan sent out that Heather had
previously provided?

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: I think, Naomi, since people are just receiving this this second,
none of us had seen Jeff's revisions until now, so I don't think we could possibly be
discussing that. He sent
--

I sent
something earlier today, around 9:30 this morning,
Eastern Time, that is the draft that most of us are talking about. Did you get that?

>> I don't think I got it, Susan. This is Steve Jacobs, but I may be the only one. I'm not
sure.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Well,
I'll check my out box and see what happened, but
--

>> JOHN: This is John cart. I did get that, Susan, and it was indeed about 9:15 your
time.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Uh
-
huh.

>> MALE SPEAKER: I got it.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: There were two attachments in one email.

>>
MALE SPEAKER: Thank you.

>> HEATHER: Okay, sorry. I do see it now. (inaudible) the email from Heather so I
guess I am behind.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay.

>> This is Jeff.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yes, Jeff.

>> JEFF: So now totally see the point. Yeah, so not a lot of t
ime for anybody to go
through this. So why don't I do a quick walk through, and really it is a 30 page
document but the bulk of that 30 pages is straight out of working group 1's report. I
just didn't go through and delete all the content there because I t
hought, well, you
know, the structure that they used here, and maybe even, you know, the content we
could use as a template, and it might provide at least a model that we might want to
follow. So I didn't want to go and rip out everything after, but I thin
k about the first 11
pages are
--

>> NAOMI: Before you (inaudible), could you clarify which version of the document
should we be looking at now? The one from 9/15 or the one that was just sent out?

>> JEFF: Well, I
--

why don't we use the one that was just

sent out, if you have it
available. That would be X.
--

well, X2. You'll see it, right in the file name.

>> I don't believe some of us have that. This is Andy with NCTI. No, I didn't receive
it yet.

>> JEFF: Okay. No problem, we can start out with X1. X2
more or less just holds
some of the information that Heather had provided. But we can certainly start with X
1, from a formatting and outline perspective they're pretty much equivalent.

So if it would help, you know, given that people haven't had time to r
eally look
through this, why don't I just give a quick walk
-
through. I think you'll see a lot of the
content here is either directly pulled from the CDAA itself or from the relevant
sections for us. So maybe that would provide a good starting point for eve
rybody. So
just starting off, introduction and legislative background, just kind of provides an
overview of the CDAA itself, the purpose of the bill, the VPAAC formation and what
not.

>> NAOMI: I'm sorry, can I interject quickly a question on process? (ina
udible) is it
okay to interrupt you as you go through if we have concerns or do we want to hold all
comments and get through the overview of the whole document? I'm trying to figure
out how do we want to make the best use of the rest of the call (thanks).

>> JEFF: Really, my thought, and you guys let me know if you would feel differently,
I can give a quick overview and
--

in probably three to five minutes. And we can go
from there.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: That sounds good to me, Jeff. So why don't you proceed wit
h
that, and please hold your questions and, you know, put a note in the margins or
something where you have comments, and we'll try to come back to those and sort
--

in sort of sequential from the top, you know
--

from page 1 on, in other words, rather
tha
n just randomly. Okay. Thanks, Jeff.

>> JEFF: No problem. Thanks, Susan. So
--

you know, and at this point let me start
off with
--

at this point while I did go through and kind of put a draft together for
some of these sections, my intent for today would
not be that we go through and start,
you know, working through the wording. I think we'll have plenty of time to do that. I
think more critical for this up front work would be coming to an agreement over the
general outline and structure and then we can go

in and start breaking out sections
and, you know, assigning filling out the content to the appropriate folks on the call, to
start filling in some of the things, like, for example, John had mentioned, you know,
hey, we should probably have some sections i
n here that reference (inaudible) and
standards and what not, and I couldn't agree more. I don't have that content here
today, but I agree with you, I think that would provide a lot of value at the end of the
day. I think there will be more of that, but fo
r now my thought was up front let's get a
skeletal outline together and we can start filling in from there.

So starting off, we had this introduction and legislative background section. This was
another thing I basically called from the VPAAC
--

I'm sorry,

from the working group
(inaudible) report. Just covers, you know, the CVAA itself, the formation of the
VPAAC, the various charges that the act specifies for the VPAAC, and I tried to break
those out in detail as they're broken out in the CVAA so they're
more or less cut and
paste. I got into formation and charter of working groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, very quick
overview of what the various working groups do. Again, this working group 1 already
had one put together. I followed the same kind of model, essentiall
y a single sentence
around what working group 4 is geared to do, and then references to the working
group leadership (or here to do).

Following that, a working group 4 charter objectives and guidelines. The charter,
again, some quotes specifically from
--

I think this would be from the VPAAC
bylaws, 1, 2 and 3, and then forward from there, we have some content that came out
of
--

actually, this came directly from subgroup 3, so when everybody has a chance to
read through, you know, charter and guidelines an
d whatnot, I'd suggest taking a look
at that and red lining as you feel appropriate. And then forward from there, guidelines
with a subsection within that. What I did there is just here's the most directly
applicable sections of the CVAA to guided working
group forward, sections 204 and
205, and what I did from there is in a bulletized fomplet outlined the various
requirements of those sections. So John, to your point, you said earlier we should
probably go back through sections 204 and 205 to make sure we'
ve met all the various
intents of what working group 4 is supposed to cover, and I agree with you
completely, so I actually pulled those sections directly into the document, if for no
other reason than just reference for ourselves to make sure we can go ba
ck and have
covered ail the bases. The guidelines, I dove right into user base accessibility use
cases and functional requirements. We might be able to break these out into different
sections, one covering use cases, the next functional requirements, what
have you, but
I'm certainly open to however we want to structure it, but I thought it would be
important to highlight both use cases and, you know, associated functional
requirements.

Again, the bulk of this section indirectly from subgroup 3, although in
the X2 version
I started to try and pull some of the inputs from Heather's subgroup as well, and
really, that's about
--

that's the extent of what I have so far. The next section starts
with technical requirements, and everything that follows is directly f
rom working
group 1. And again, I just didn't delete that. I thought it might provide a good model
or template for us, but we're
--

we're pretty wide open to do you know, as we see fit.
So that basically gets us up to where we are. Any other questions?

>>
SUSAN KIMMEL: I just have a couple questions off the top of my head. What do
you mean by use cases? Are those examples from
--

>> I'm sorry, who's speaking, please? Could you identify yourself?

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: This is Susan Kimmel.

>> SHANE: This is Shane
. Thank you.

>> JEFF: I'm sorry, Susan, did you want me to explain the thinking behind use case?

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yes, just
--

how you defined what it means.

>> JEFF: Sure, no problem. I guess use case could be defined in a number of ways,
but I think that

the
--

at the core of what we need to do is to ensure that, you know, a
user with disabilities is able to go in and use whatever apparatus they have, whatever
device they happen to be working with to access video programming with sound.
There's a variety
of use cases that are involved in that, whether it be, you know,
navigation of content, discovery of content, selection of content, configuration of
accessibility options, like closed captioning, video description, what have you, so the
use cases could be
different depending on the device type, whether that's a mobile
device versus set top box versus PC
-
based application, Web browser, what have you.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay. Basically that sounds like you're saying user needs,
what the user requires as opposed

to what the equipment
--

the functional
requirements of the equipment. Is that the
--

>> JEFF: Yeah. Yeah, I would say that's correct. So
--

and at the end of the day we
should be defining requirements to
--

to serve, you know, the use cases.

>> SUSAN KIM
MEL: Okay.

>> JEFF: So a use case would lead to you a requirement, and you'd make that
requirement in order to ensure that the use case is served.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay. And maybe because I'm a lawyer I think of (inaudible)
as being, you know, like case st
udies, you know, it would be like a real world
--

something that is already in existence, and so it would be an example of something.
But here you're using it sort of more abstractly as to the user needs. Is that correct?

>> JEFF: Yeah, I think that's a go
od interpretation.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay. Thank you. Please, others, if you have comments or
questions for Jeff?

>> This is Heather
--

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Heather, go ahead.

>> HEATHER: Okay. I was going to ask
--

I don't have the document in front of me,
Jef
f, but would you give an idea of how you (inaudible) merge work groups 1, 2 and
3? Are we just flowing into each other now or all combined? (inaudible) sections? I
guess I'm just (inaudible) and I'm not entirely sure and I'd like some more detail.

>> NAOMI
: Heather, this is Naomi. I'm having trouble hearing you. Are you on a
headset? Can you adjust it and restate the question?

>> HEATHER: I am on a headset and I will try to adjust it, but go ahead and take
Shane while I adjust, thanks. Go ahead, Shane. I'm
adjusted. So you guys can hear me
now?

>> MALE SPEAKER: Yes.

>> Much better.

>> HEATHER: Sorry. I was asking Jeff how you merged the
--

if you could tell us
more about the use cases and functional requirement section and how you merge the
different subgrou
ps. I think it's pretty good that we're all merging together, we're no
longer 1, 2 and 3 (inaudible) disabilities, visual disabilities, but I'd like to hear more
about how we'll be organized within the outline (I think).

>> JEFF: Sure, so I can tell you to
day I don't think that they're necessarily merged, or
at least not well, from what I have today. I think that's part of the task at hand. To my
thinking right now is just establishing, you know, how do we want to format this to be
able to include all the v
arious inputs to cover, you know, the topics of subgroups 1, 2
and 3. And my thought was just looking at a user interface at kind of the high level,
define the categories of requirements that we would need to meet, sort of from an
abstract level, not focus
ed on visual, audio impairments, NVPD (inaudible), et cetera,
but I think that's where you get into use cases. The use kaidz might be very different
from an NVPD environment versus IP delivery, very different whether you're talking
about, you know, visual
impairments versus audio impairments, what have you, so
(use cases). So (inaudible) the task at hand.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: John, before you go ahead I wonder if Shane
--

Shane, did you
have a comment to make? Because I think you were waiting for Heather.

>> SH
ANE: This is Shane. No, I didn't have anything.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Go ahead, John.

>> JOHN: Okay. This is John card. Heather, to partially answer your question, for
example, under the
--

the high
-
level functional requirements, Jeff has got a section
that tal
ks about persistence, so the work that came out of subgroup 1 that addressed
persistence directly, you know, kind of has a home in the current draft outline and
presumably that section would either include all the information from subgroup 1 or
even more i
f we're able to reach, you know, a discussion across the whole work group
floor.

Similarly, I think the other kinds of requirements that were coming out of subgroup 1
will have a similar location in the final report. So I
--

I think there's a direct transl
ation
of the subgroup 1 work directly into
--

there's a place to put all of that into this outline.
It appears to be.

>> Andy, please?

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Go ahead, Andy.

>> ANDREW: Thanks, Andy, Andy skeleton, CTA. Jeff, my compliments on the
document. I thi
nk this echoes John's assignments. I think this is a terrific start. Just
curious in the section dealing with
--

with some high
-
level functional requirements,
you used some of the
--

you have some of the standards compliance terminology like
shall and shed
. Just curious to know if there was some intent behind the word "shall"
in that respect or just curious why all these wouldn't be "should" since this is
essentially a report out of the group or will eventually be a report out of the group. But
just a littl
e surprised to find some of that hard sort of standards compliance notation
there in the document. (that was Jeff, are you there?

>> JEFF: Yep, that's me talking into a muted phone one once again. Sorry about that.
It's a good question, and to be honest, i
t's purely a carry
-
over from my days as an
engineer. (beep) So not intended to relate back to, you know, standards
-
type language,
and I'm more than happy to modify it. That's just
--

that's the way I was raised, let's
say, to (inaudible) requirements. But
my thinking was, you know, we'd want to be
defining functional
-
level requirements (inaudible) any product designed to provide,
you know, accessibility to video programming, we would need to meet in order to
meet, you know, the accessibility needs of disabl
ed users. But as far as the language
goes, I'm more than happy to modify, you know, and I think that's again part of the
work ahead of us.

>> I agree. Thanks for the clarification, Jeff.

>> JEFF: Yeah, absolutely.

>> SHANE: Hi, this is Shane. I would just
like to understand exactly what you mean
by the word "nonvolatile." Because I see some examples of that later on in the
wording, but I just want to make sure I understand exactly what you mean by that
word, "Nonvolatile." Can you explain that, please?

>> J
EFF: No, problem, Shane. So again that's going to be a carry
-
over from my
engineering background, and in particular I used the term "nonvolatile memory" quite
a bit when we talk about persistence, and it it very well might be an improper term to
be using i
n this type of context. But nonvolatile, generally just nonvolatile memory is
where you would store information that you wanted to maintain through power cycles
and things of that nature on a device. In this context I simply meant
--

I'll just take an
exam
ple. So I used the term nonvolatile under an illustrative example where I'm
describing persistence for devices, in many devices today user preference settings,
including closed caption and many language (inaudible) selections are stored in
nonvolatile memo
ry such that they are maintained across (inaudible) reboots, power
cycles and other service interruptions. So it's just information you want to store and
maintain in a persistent way so it doesn't get a raised product (inaudible) following
reboot, for exam
ple.

>> SHANE: This is Shane again. That's very interesting. It's a very interesting word. I
just want to make sure that whatever word that we decide to use, it is consistent with
what the FCC is using also.

>> JEFF: Excellent point. Absolutely.

>> SUSAN K
IMMEL: Well, it seems that there needs to be a definition section at
some place, so point well
-
taken, Shane. And to me, I was not familiar with the term
nonvolatile either, but I think that is a standard within the IT community. Apparently
that does mean
-
-

other people and engineers know what that means, so it seems to be
a useful definition to have.

>> NAOMI: This is Naomi, I have a question.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yes, please go ahead, Naomi.

>> NAOMI: I'm wondering
--

I would really like to participate in the

discussion about
these issues. I've been in a presentation all morning and I've had no time to look at
either the 9:00 a.m. version of this or the one that was just sent out. I wonder if it
might be productive for us to do what we did on the other working

group, which is to
nominate an editor or editors and to have everybody look at the document and then
submit comments which the editors could consolidate and we could then meet to
discuss as a group, because I feel like there's
--

there are going to be a l
ot of little one
-
off questions, which we could perhaps address as time went
--

I haven't even seen the
section about volatile memory. I think that's the one that was literally just sent out. I'd
love to give this my full attention and I feel like it's real
ly difficult for me to pick at
this piecemeal.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Well, this
--

this is getting to a question of procedures, and it
does seem that we do need to make that part of today's discussion because we do have
our work cut out for us as a
--

you know,

to get this outline put together and to
actually fill it out with substantive material. I think Jeff was suggesting that we get
some consensus here that the structure of the report would resemble something on the
order of what he had for us today. And at
a high level, I've only heard positive
feedback. I don't know if it would be
--

one addition that John Card was
recommending, which was having
--

I think he was calling it an information
--

>> JOHN: Informational
--

>> Informational annex, which might incl
ude references to other standards or things
that may be, I don't know, used as reference tells or incorporated by reference, and
again, I'm not sure to what extent
--

how they would be used.

But I agree, it's really hard to have votes over the telephone li
ke this when there are 15
or more people on the line and it's
--

you know, we can't see each other and agree to
something. But as a procedural thing, maybe having people have a chance to review
what Jeff has prepared at both a high level in terms of overal
l structure and then at a
more detailed level in terms of what actual technology means or what the content that
he's provided, how to expand it to cover, you know, additional thoughts that have
come up either in your subgroups or in your own practices of h
ow to fill in this
material, would all be useful.

I am not quite sure who will be serving as an editor, and that may be something we
can discuss now. So in terms of today's agenda, I think, you know, if we have
volunteers for the editor role, if we think t
hat's the best way to proceed in terms of
having
--

I think we do need to have everyone's comments get funneled to one place,
one or two places, so they can be all incorporated and managed and then sent out for
people's review.

The Wiki was intended to ser
ve as that funneling mechanism, that everyone would
--

that there would be discussion on the Wiki, but apparently that doesn't work terribly
well. So I would appreciate others' thoughts on where we
--

you know, how best to do
it. If the other working group
s, as you say, had editors who provided this function,
perhaps we should model ourselves after that. So let me just throw that open to
reaction, how many think that's a good idea.

>> Susan, this is Adam.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yes.

>> ADAM: Yeah, I think that it
's a good idea to have an editor or maybe a pair of
editors just so that you don't have lots of people with lots of different versions of
documents floating around that can cause a real hassle in trying to reintegrate stuff,
and that, you know, when
--

I'd

suggest that when
--

when there are changes or edits
suggested by someone, you know, they don't like this particular way something is
handled or some additional text needs to be
--

needs to be added, that they suggest
specific detailed text to make it eas
ier on the editors to include.

And finally, I mean, if you're hunting for a volunteer to take on the funneling and
colation and editing tasks, I could probably be convinced to do that.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Wow. (laughter) Makes me feel very powerful if I can t
wist
your arm through the (inaudible) this way. (laughter) But that's really
--

thank you
very much. I think if you are willing to take that on, we would all be very thankful for
that, Adam. That would be a terrific function.

>> John cart?

>> SUSAN KIMMEL:

Yes, John.

>> JOHN: Thank you, this is John cart. Adam, you and I have worked together on
different documents before. If your idea of a pair of editors is a good one, you know,
I'll put my name forward to do that function as well, although others may have

in
mind, since they be geographically closer to you, that there may be other volunteers
that are better or maybe different than me. But if you are looking for names, I've got
the time to do that as well.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Well, thank you, John.

>> Hi, here
, it's Shane here speaking. I want to make sure that before I commit myself
for anything, I just want to understand the timeline, if I could, please, because right
now I'm very focused on the NPIM, and that's coming out
--

well, it's already out, and
--

on

October 18, excuse me, October 18, (inaudible) the report comment will be on
the 28th.

So what timeline for this document? What kind of work will be expected
--

will be in
the collection of the information and get it back out to the group?

>> SUSAN KIMMEL
: Well, I believe the final report is due in April, and that we
probably need to have our section of it ready at least two months ahead of that. I truly
don't have those dates in front of me.

>> JEFF: This is Jeff.

>> NAOMI: I have a proposal.

>> SUSAN KIM
MEL: Is that Naomi?

>> NAOMI: Yes, Jeff also had a question. Somebody pick an order.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Jeff, let's have your question first and then Naomi has a
suggestion.

>> JEFF: Sure, actually not a question, just a quick comment in response to Shane. S
o
the timeline that had been requested by the co
-
chairs of the VPAAC is that of the
working group 4 report complete through the providings of working group 4 (have it
complete (and have it submitted to the overall VPAAC group by February 1, and
that's to a
llow u the whole VPAAC, time to review and revise each of the
--

each of
the working groups' report, in order to combine for the final report which is due in
early April. So our work needs to be complete and submitted to the full VPAAC by
February 1.

>> SU
SAN KIMMEL: Thank you, Jeff.

>> SHANE: This is Shane again. With that timeline in mind, I am willing to help out.
I'd like to volunteer as the editor, with the understanding that I won't be able to help
until after October 28.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay. Well,
that's wonderful, Shane, and delighted to have
more people coming forward. I think we'll have to see how complicated this will be to
have several different people doing the editing. So
--

I'm not the one who's going to be
making this decision, truly. I thi
nk that probably as the co
-
chairs, Jeff and Pratik
probably will need to confer on how they really want to handle how the editing gets
performed. I think
--

there certainly is a role for everybody on the working group to
contribute substantively to the rep
ort, so we're really counting on everyone's expertise
in putting this
--

in forming the materials, in terms of actually doing the editing, I
don't have a basis for making any determinations on that. It may just be a matter of
convenience and, you know, who

has the time to commit
--

available to be able to
commit to doing this.

So let's move to Naomi's suggestion and hear how
--

what she has to say.

>> NAOMI: So I believe most of us will be there in person on November 1. Is that
correct? At the FCC?

>> SUSAN

KIMMEL: I don't think I have feedback as to how many are attending yet,
but everybody has been invited.

>> NAOMI: So I was
--

I was going to suggest that perhaps in the first interim
deadline we could perhaps ask people to read through this document and s
ubmit a first
set of comments for November
--

November 1, I guess by which I mean October 31,
so that on the 1st it's actually available to the editors, and I don't know whether we
will have time at the FCC to spend any time reviewing comments, but that mi
ght be a
nice milestone if any of us want to get together, perhaps even informally, either just
before or just after, to review them. Since many of us will be in D.C. that might be
useful.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Well, I don't believe the agenda for the November
1 meeting
has been set yet, but the overall description of it is to have three plenary sessions for
approximately two hours each of working groups 2, 3 and 4, meaning that all
attendees of the entire VPAAC would be present for each of those sessions, becau
se
there was thought to be quite a bit of overlap between the different working groups,
and so the idea was that if everybody was present for each of these presentations, that
issues that surfaced between them would become more apparent and could be
addres
sed in a significant way.

So just, for example, working group 2 is primarily dealing with video description, and
a large part of that, I think, will be from a technical standpoint. However, there is also
the question of user interface for how consumers wou
ld access the video description.
So that's the overlap with our working group 4.

And actually I think some people who are in working group 4 are members of some of
the other working groups, and there may be quite a bit of overlap of personnel as well
as is
sues.

>> ADAM: Susan, it's Adam.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yes.

>> ADAM: To the extent that the agenda hasn't been set yet for the meeting, I would
definitely support something like what I think you just see, with a set of serial
meetings so that we can get a good
sense of what the groups are talking about and
have a full and complete picture of what's going on rather than
--

rather than split up
and just be in our own little group.

>> NAOMI: This is Naomi. I had a question.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Naomi, why don't you go
ahead and then we'll get to John.

>> NAOMI: I'm curious if we're planning to have a plenary session from working
group 4, what is our plan for what we will do with that part of the session which the
other working group members may be looking to us to find
out what we've been
doing?

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Well, I
--

today I sent around again the message that came
from Allison and Pam, who are the co
-
chairs of the entire VPAAC, which sort of laid
out this request for the list of issues that each working group is pl
anning to cover in
their final report. And
--

I'll have to go back and look at it again because I think the
date was October 14 for a list
--

a preliminary list from each working group to come
back to the FCC so that those of us here, the FCC staff, could
look it over and suggest
additional issues that may not have been surfaced by the various working groups. And
apparently that's what had been done with working group 1, and they found that to be
very successful. And so some of you have already been through

this drill once before.
You can weigh in as to whether you thought that worked well, but I think it's just to
make sure that the final report will really cover all the bases of what you think needs
to be in the final report to the FCC, the one that would
be done, as Jeff is saying,
February 1.

>> Excuse me, Susan, it's Laura Ruby.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yes, hi, Laura. John was going to speak after.

>> JOHN: Yes, just quickly, and to touch on something Naomi was speaking about,
meeting around the time of the VPA
AC. Working group 3 which is addressing
emergency information, has tentatively scheduled a meeting on the 2nd of November.
I think the
--

Kelly Williams from the ATSC was trying to set up a meeting room. So
for those of us who might be working group 3 and
working group 4 co
-
members, and
I think Andy Scott is on the call, I'm not sure who else is there, if working group 4
wants to have a side meeting, I'd request to try and not overlap with you know, that
working group 3 meeting.

I don't necessarily want to
propose that for working group 4 or stand against it, but I
do want to put that idea in folks' minds.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Thank you, John. I was aware that working group 3 had
expected members to stay overnight so they could meet on the 2nd. We haven't come
t
o any suggestion like that, but we will certainly avoid a conflict.

Go ahead, Laura.

>> LAURA: That's okay. I found what I was looking for, Susan.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay. Thanks.

>> NAOMI: This is Naomi. I have another question I'd like to raise.

>> SUSAN K
IMMEL: Go ahead, Naomi.

>> NAOMI: Okay. I'm sorry, I feel like I'm kind of dancing around the same point.
I'm really confused. So there was
--

there was a draft that Heather and Shane had
worked on that you sent out, Susan, and then Jeff's document I think

is a different
draft; is that correct?

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Correct.

>> NAOMI: And so I'm concerned that if we don't have a plan between now and
November 1, that what we present on November 1 will represent either
--

I would
characterize as coming from the in
dustry side or Heather and Shane's view, which I
would characterize as coming from the consumer side, and I feel that it's really
important if we're going to present something to the entire VPAAC, that we should
have a consolidated message, and I feel like

right now it's a little polarized and I'm not
sure what we're going to present or whether that speaks for everyone. And so I'm
concerned about this, and at the same time I have the (inaudible) breathing down my
neck and I'm wondering if I'm the only one w
ith this concern.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Well, I think
--

the impression I got is that Jeff was trying to
incorporate the content from Heather and Shane's report into the structure that he had
been working with and trying to devise for the full report. So I thin
k it's just a matter
of timing that that hadn't been completed before we had to meet for today's phone call.
The intent is not to have two divergent points of view. The intent is to try to merge the
two.

>> SHANE: And this is Shane here. I just wanted to s
ay that yes, I agree with Naomi,
and I was just wondering if there would be maybe some conversation between me and
Jeff and Heather to maybe continue talking about some of the parts to make sure that
we're all on the same page before this presentation.

>>
This is (inaudible). Can you guys hear me?

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: No, I'm sorry I couldn't hear you.

>> HEATHER: That's all right.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Heather?

>> HEATHER: (inaudible).

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: That's a little better.

>> HEATHER: (inaudible) Verizon, I tell

you. I'm about to go into a tunnel so I
apologize if you lose me but it sounds like what we're all saying is if we
--

we need to
spend a little more time with Jeff's document and we need to make sure we have one
outline that's done in advance of the Novem
ber 1 meeting. Is that something that we
can try to accomplish? Is I guess my question to everybody. And if so, Adam is the
initial editor volunteer. Is it something you think you can put together in advance of
the November 1 meeting?

>> John Cart.

>> SUSA
N KIMMEL: Go ahead, John.

>> JOHN: So this is John Cart. So some of the outline that Heather submitted looks a
little familiar to me. I do think that there is a way to make sure we merge and create
basically a super
-
set document, much as Jeff started from
the working group 1 report
and 20 pages of what we have in hand right now is from working group 1 and will
definitely be changed quite a lot. I believe that nearly all, if not all of Heather's
document fits nicely into the structure Jeff has presented. So
I do believe a you all,
Shane and Heather and Naomi are calling for, is indeed achievable. If we can have
one additional call maybe to review a super
-
set document before November 1, and
maybe even before the 14th of October, we might well discover that we
are in violent
agreement on how to merge all of the input across all of working group 4.

>> Andy.

>> That sounds fair.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Andy, go ahead.

>> ANDREW: Thank you, Susan, Andy Scott with (inaudible). I agree with John. I'm
sitting here listening
to some of the views expressed and I guess I'm a little surprised.
You know, up until just recently we've had a
--

three disparate groups and each
working on various different outputs, sort of in a vacuum, in a way. So it's not
surprising to me to see, you

know, a variety of different documents. I don't think
anybody is suggesting, certainly not me, and I don't think anyone else is either, that
that
--

that that suggests that things are polarized. Or views are poaght poartize
polarize the not all these docu
ments are collapsed into one. I don't think that would
suggest we're polarized in any particular way. Thank you.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Thank you, Andy.

>> SHANE: This is Shane here if I could jump in. I agree with what Jeff was saying,
and talking about off it
off
-
line, maybe we could do it through email, about maybe
meeting again all of us to continue the discussion on the editing of the document.
Before I would do that, though, I would ask that you guys see some of the parts of that
document, like if the
--

Je
ff's document, and include some of the working groups 1,
working group 1, of their recommendations. I don't think we have to do that over
again. Why would that be included?

>> Mark (inaudible).

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yes.

>> Hi, it's Mark with Sony. In looking a
t the document we got from Jeff, the X2
document, I'm noticing that a lot of the text, as you mentioned, is directly skill copied
from the working group 1 report. A lot of it is new but a lot of it is just sort of
placeholder text from the other report. I
think it would be helpful if one of the
editorial passes would be just to delete all the text that is only there because it was in
the working group 1 report and just leave placeholder section headings instead of any
text in there.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay. T
hank you, Mark.

>> (inaudible).

>> And cue Adam when you get a chance too.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Jean, go ahead.

>> JEAN: Thank you. I'm concerned that because working group 2, or subgroup 2,
didn't have a lot of written output, that a lot of our issues are bei
ng lost. So I would
like to see if there's a way to get some of the subgroup 2 people, or at least anyone
who was in subgroup 2 who would like to work with me on it to put together some
summary of the work that we did do this summer.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay.

Thank you, Jeanne. Adam, before we go to you I was
just going to mention that I see two tasks at hand right now. I see one is to sort of pull
everything together into one report that will eventually become the final report and try
to get, you know, some e
ditorial working on it to consolidate the different drafts that
exists so far. But I also see the other object before October 14 is to get this list of
issues, and that to me speaks very much to what Jeanne just mentioned, because I
think each of these sub
groups did work off of a list of issues or generated a list of
issues that may or may not have really had any kind of textual form. They may just be
questions, and that still is something that would be very useful because that's truly
what the FCC is hopin
g you will be able to send us by October 14.

So if each of
--

I don't care where it comes from, but if each of the subgroups can just
itemize, you know, just bullet points of list of issues, I think that would be a useful
task to be done by October 14.

On
the other hand, the editorial workings, as Naomi points out, needs to be done
maybe, you know, four or five days before that October
--

I mean, the November 1
meeting so that it can be circulated and people can actually come to the meeting on
November 1 wi
th some reactions
--

>> SHANE: This is Shane.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: And a chance to respond to this consolidated report. Okay. I
was going to give Adam a chance to speak, but Shane, if you want to go ahead, go on.

>> SHANE: Yeah, this is Shane. I just wanted to

ask, maybe
--

perhaps I missed
something, but I want to know what exactly is happening October 14? What is so
--

what is specific about October 14 date?

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: That was the request that came from the co
-
chairs of the
VPAAC for a list of issues t
o be submitted to the FCC issues issues to be addressed
by the entire working group. So because we had already broken down into the three
subgroups, to me it seemed it might be easier to start with just a list of issues from
each subgroup so that it didn't

have to go through quite as many layers of editorial
review. Okay. Hopefully that clarifies things a little bit as to what these two separate
tasks, as I see them, consist of.

And Adam
--

>> ADAM: Yeah
--

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Do you have a comment on this?

>>

ADAM: Yeah, well, a few minutes ago, or maybe it was more than that now, I
caught mention of somebody asking me to do something. I guess it's related to what
we were just talking about, the stuff that needs to be done a few days before the 1st or
a few da
ys before the 14th. But I'm not sure I understood if or what was being asked
of me to do between now and then. So could we make it a little clearer for me so I
don't mess it up? (chuckle).

>> This is (inaudible).

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay. Heather, were you re
sponding to Adam or do you have
another question?

>> HEATHER: I was responding to Adam. Adam, that was me, because I'm anxious
to see one outline so
--

I have proliferated the Wiki with about 80 different
documents. So if we could have one outline as Susan

suggested four or five days
before November 1, even earlier than that, is what I'm suggesting, it would be
fabulous. Again, I'm just anxious to see how it all pulls together, and maybe I'm
getting ahead of myself but I was hoping it could
--

we could push

for something like
that. That's all.

>> ADAM: Okay. I understand. I might need some help accumulating all the
documents, but I can
--

I can do that.

>> HEATHER: Great. I have narrowed myself down to one document, so that's a
plus. (inaudible) Naomi.

>> NA
OMI: I wanted to (inaudible) task editors. I think we've all agreed we need one
consolidated documents that includes both the work that Heather and Shane did and
the work that Jeff has done, and I appreciated, I think it was Andrew's suggestion, that
we cu
t out any of the text that isn't near the placeholder and we just replace it with
stand
-
alone headings so that we're really clear on what we need to fill in. And Adam, I
don't know if you're willing to do that, it might make sense for you to work with
Heat
her or work with Shane so that we have somebody from each group making sure
nothing is lost. If we could get that out for review to the group in relatively short order
we might be able to attach by email and at least have a sense before the next call of
wh
at the major plans (inaudible) contention are.

>> ADAM: Yeah, I can definitely work with folks. Is it just Heather and Shane or are
there others that should be involved as well?

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: I think Jean was concerned that some of subgroup 2's issues
w
eren't well
-
documented. So I don't know
--

Naomi wonder, Jean, if you would be
able to submit those as a chunk of bullet points that we could add to a subsequent edit
since today they seem to not be very well written down, or maybe as a starting point
for
other people in working group 2 (inaudible) my issue, I care about this and then
with (inaudible) discussion but maybe have that separate from the immediate editorial
task before us?

>> JEAN: This is Jean. Yes, I will
--

I'll see if I can pull together tho
se bullet points.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: That would be great. So maybe we should talk a little bit about
timeline, because what Naomi is suggesting is that we try to do an email reaction to
things in advance of the November meeting. I also wonder if at the Novem
ber
meeting, if we really
--

are people putting in a request that working group 4 have
some time to work on their own other than the plenary session? I think that was
Naomi's proposal, but
--

>> SHANE: This is Shane. I would agree with that.

>> SUSAN KIMME
L: I'm sorry, I couldn't hear anything.

>> SHANE: This is Shane. I was just agreeing with that.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Oh, thank you.

>> NAOMI: Susan, this is Naomi. I wonder if it would be possible for us to request
time before the plenary session. My real conc
ern is that in the plenary session we'll
present something which doesn't accurately reflect the entire reformed working group.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Right. You know, I'm
--

again, the agenda has not been set yet,
but I'm
--

I'm just wondering, would it be helpf
ul
--

see, I don't think we can do break
-
out groups because there are so many people who are in more than one of the working
groups, and so, you know, if they meet concurrently, people haven't learned how to be
in two places at once yet. I'm just wondering

if we had like an hour of just working
group 4 by itself and then an hour as part of a plenary, if that would be a better way to
structure things, so each of the working groups had one hour by themselves and then
one hour with the entire VPAAC. Does that
--

>> Cue John Card.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yes, John.

>> JOHN: So I guess in my mind, hearing that a structure of two hours with each of
the working groups with (inaudible) the expectation that other members of the
--

you
know, the non
-
regular members of the wo
rking groups, you know, the work group 3
and two members for us that are not also members of working group 4 would be
around, sounded like a good idea. Now that you're talking about an hour of maybe
focusing on working group 4 issues that we've been talkin
g around and maybe face
-
to
-
face to address
--

to do a short presentation, then, maybe around lunch and then to
have an afternoon plenary session where that's where we talk about the cross
-
over
issues. Because as a member of working groups 2, 3 and 4, I do
see, and there are
things that are coming up in working group 2 that working group 4 needs to know
about, or vice versa. And the same for 3 and 2 and so forth. So those various
combinations. I think there is value in having everybody kind of concentrating
on
what does this working group mean as it touches others, and there's also value in
having the time to work within working group 4 and please hold your external
comments until later this afternoon.

So maybe that kind of a structure, Susan, would be helpfu
l. Morning sessions which
are serialized, so that they don't have to be in two places at once.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Right.

>> JOHN: A short report after lunch about the mornings, or then just serialized
afternoon sessions or maybe a meeting of the VPAAC as a w
hole with concentration
on each of the working groups in the afternoon. Maybe that's a useful structure.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yeah.

>> JOHN: Others on the call may have other ideas of how to structure the time.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Well, I think this is, you know,

still to be discussed. My only
reason for raising it now is if working group 4 thinks that we need a significant
amount of time just as working group 4 and how we can fit it into that day, or whether
as working group 3 has already figured out they need a
second day. I think it
complicates everyone's travel plans if that's the case, but if you have strong feelings
one way or another, I think we need to at least air them now so that something can be
decided to give people enough time to do something about it
.

>> JEFF:


>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yes, Jeff.

>> JEFF: If I can, I know we're getting down to our last 20 minutes of this particular
call, and I understand the concerns that have been raised with respect to, you know,
the November 1 meeting. The only thing I
would recommend at this point, to the draft
outline that I put together for the final report from working group 4, I think it was
Susan that said it, but really, the intent of that is to coalesce all the input from the
various groups, the team in general,
to have our views documented in a single place.
So my hope is that, you know, we have a month before the November 1 meeting is
that, you know, we can meet several more times before November 1, and not
necessarily finalize the report or anything, right? We
have until February to do that,
but at least get down to, you know, a document that we all agree with that represents
our views and that also lists, you know, the open sections still to be filled in and we
can at least identify the work that is still left
to be done, and really, I think that's all
that is required for November 1. It's more or less
--

you know, my understanding of
that meeting is it's more or less a read
-
out of, you know, hey, here's the current status
of our work and here's what's left to b
e done, and if possible, put some timetables
around that work as well.

So I think what
--

my hope for today, before we wrap up, is that we can have some
agreement on, you know, format of the outline and then we can start working through
filling in that for
mat.

So let me ask this as kind of a start
-
off question for that. My thought on format, and I
hope I
--

I tried to capture it, and I hope I captured it a little better in the X2 version, is
that we provide, you know, kind of the legislative background, the

specifics from the
legislation that we are targeted or tasked to provide, right, sections 204 and 205 in
particular, and then following that getting into the specific meat of our report, and the
way that I thought we would structure that aspect or that po
rtion of the report would
be highlighting a particular functional requirement
--

I'll just use an example. Let's say
persistence is one that came out of Heather's
--

Heather's subgroups' input. So
persistence. We have one specific requirement that highligh
ts the need for persistence
of user settings so that, you know, a disabled user doesn't have to every time they turn
on their TV for example reset up their accessibility options. That's going to apply
probably a variety of ways, so maybe we highlight under
neath that requirement in
kind of an illustrative example sort of format, hey, here's some relevant standards,
protocols, procedures that we've included as potential reference material. Here's some
example use cases that we feel are relevant and illustrate

what we are intending to
require with this particular functional requirement, and we do that for all the
functional requirements. I mean, my thought was, you know, that's really the meat that
we need to fill out and we need to identify within that the par
ticular protocols,
procedures, what have you that are associated with each of those requirements.

So just from a structural perspective, that was
--

that was where I was headed, and I
guess what I'd like to know is, does everybody agree with that as an app
roach that we
want to pursue or are there other ways of
--

you know, I'm sure there's a million ways
to skin this. That was my first draft at it, and I'm not sure if we closed on whether
that's a good approach or not or if the team agrees.

>> HEATHER: Cue
Heather.

>> NAOMI: Cue Naomi.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yes, Naomi.

>> She was ahead of me.

>> HEATHER: I was going to say Jeff, I think that's a great way and I appreciate the
way you define the outline. The only thought I had, I think John might have brought
up,
is the structure of the outline I sent through is the same one that working group 2
is using, with (inaudible) any benefit in in this stage in the game and I think the
answer is no, to ensure our report is structured the same as working group 2's or 3.
Tha
t's just a comment. But I like yours. I mean, it doesn't matter to me either way.
There was no
--

>> Cue John card.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Well, I think Naomi was ahead of you, John.

>> JOHN: That's why I'm in the cue.

>> NAOMI: So I think the structure overall
is good. I'm hesitant to introduce too
much specific detail on standards, protocols and procedures. I really feel that the most
important feedback that we can provide to the FCC from working group 4 is really the
high
-
level description of here's is what th
e user expects. This is what the user needs,
and I think we should try and refrain from advocating a particular standard or protocol
for achieving that, because I think we cannot anticipate the technology of the future.
What we can do is we can talk about
the ways that these devices need to work with
each other to enable standards and protocols to emerge, but I'm not sure that within
the context of working group 4 and what the FCC has asked us to do, that we should
specifically be tying things to particular

standards or protocols.

I also think that for nor 1 perhaps our goal should on enovember 1 perhaps our goal
should be to agree to disagree. Perhaps we should have debate and I would prefer to
see our goal for November 1 because time is short and many of u
s are working on our
NPRM comments, perhaps we could have as a goal the areas we think are important
to cover in this do you mean, including areas where we may have the divergence
opinion, and that's something we did work in group 1 that I think was very p
roductive
in working towards an eventual document.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay. Thank you, Naomi. I think certainly that list of issues is
something that's very critical. Whether we agree or not, certainly by November 1 is
not nearly as important. So I agree wit
h you on that. John, did you have a comment?

>> JOHN: Yeah, real quickly. Heather, your point is very good in terms of merging
structures with work group 2 and work group 3. Either I suspect that will be handled
off
-
line by the co
-
chairs of each of the wor
king group and magically we'll see that
resolved for us, or, more likely, I suspect that will be a subject that we ought to cover
in that November 1 meeting and come up with a way to start structuring that overall
final VPAAC report outline so that we know

where our sections fit in. I think working
from an outline format, though, I suspect we could quickly change with what our
major bullets are to subbullets of a different report, so I'm not too worried about the
structural stuff. I think that there's enoug
h commonality amongst the working groups
that as far as I know no one has taken an insane way to structure an outline that makes
working group 4's stuff to be thrown on the floor.

To touch on Naomi's stuff, I absolutely agree with you. I want to see the ab
ility for the
industry or academia or anybody to come up with the solutions we find in the
VPAAC. I keep coming back, though, when I read the legislation, to part of the
VPAAC's charge seems to be to include in our reports relevant standards, if any do
exi
st. So I guess I'd like to understand
--

maybe this is another subject for the
November 1 meeting
--

what exactly does that mean? Does that mean that we ought to
be mentioning particular standards or should we kind of take that charge to the
VPAAC from the

legislation lightly and instead point out the fact that by the time
these solutions are developed, new standards will need to exist and what we are trying
to do is develop merely the functional requirements for those new standards. I don't
have a good ans
wer to that. I struggle with that continually in my conversations
internally here and with other working
--

working group 4 and other working group
members, that we seem to be asked to do two things simultaneously. You know, the
FCC is not allowed to menti
on particular standards. However, the VPAAC seems to
be required to do so, and, you know, it's
--

it's legislation. What else would one
expect?

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: (laughter).

>> Cue Jeff Newdeck.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Go ahead, Jeff.

>> JEFF: John and Naomi, it m
ight seem like an conflicting answer but I agree on
both counts. In my mind I don't
--

I don't have an issue and actually I think it would be
beneficial for us to include references to related specs and what have you. Perhaps
even highlighting gaps where w
e see them, but I think it has to be made very crystal
clear within our document and our report that they are for illustrative purposes only
and we by no stretch of the imagination intend to dictate to the market particular
implementations, specifications
that must be adhered to, et cetera. But I do think that
they can provide relevant background or examples that could be valuable, and I think
going through those individually, and I'll just highlight one that was highlighted on
the Wiki, would be the WC 3 r
eport. I think that those
--

W3 C report. I think those
are valuable for us to look through to see if we should be serializing or referencing.
But I certainly don't think that we are required to have that type of reference for every
requirement. I agree wi
th Heather
--

I'm sorry, with Naomi, that I think our main
objective should be defining what the user requirements are for accessibility, and
doing so as clearly as possible, and where we can use illustrative examples to better
clarify those requirements,
I think that would be beneficial.

But again, dictating the technology or implementation, I 100% agree is not
advantageous to anybody.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay. Thank you, Jeff. It seems that we
--

I am hearing pretty
much consensus on this, that we'll use sta
ndards as more illustrative than as
requirements and
--

so that it's an ongoing process of developing standards, use
standards as technology changes in order to meet whatever functional requirements
that we can identify. So that becomes really the basis, i
s starting from the user needs
and user
--

the functional requirements in that sense.

>> Jean spellman?

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yes, Jean.

>> JEAN: I was cueing but I was on mute. I want to do bring a discussion that we did
have in subgroup 2 where I actually don
't remember who brought it up. It wasn't me
--

saying that they wanted to make sure, though, that we were aligned
--

that what we
recommended was aligned with existing standards so that companies
--

vendors would
not have to develop different products for
the U.S. than they develop for the rest of the
world. (phone ringing). So I believe that that has an important piece in what we
produce as a final report. (beep).

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay. Good point, Jean. I think probably that would be
consistent with what
Jeff was saying about not dictating standards to anyone, because
then you would
--

there would be more flexibility as long as you were satisfying the
functional requirements.

Okay. Well, I think our time is wrapping up, so let's just figure out where we sh
ould
go next. It seems to me based on what we've said so far today, if we try to schedule at
least another interim phone call, one or two between now and the November 1
meeting, but having the documents get out to everybody with a little more lead time
so
that people can actually have a chance to respond with more definite, well thought
-
out comments would be really helpful.

So let's see. If we are trying to start by putting together these first few do you mean,
the one from Heather and Jeff, Adam, are you w
illing to try (first two documents) to
give that a stab, to try to put those into a written format and clean up the text a little
bit so that it removes things other than headings and subheadings from the outline for
--

from the working group 1 earlier
--

>> ADAM: Yeah, sure. Are you asking whether I could
--

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yeah, what date do you think is a reasonable one? Do you
think a week from now for you to get it into circulation and then another week for
people to reply so we'd have a phone confere
nce in approximately two weeks?

>> ADAM: That
--

that should
--

that should be fine. That should be fine. I
--

I mean,
yeah
--

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Well, we don't have to tie it down to the exact date, but part of
the issue is that we had some back and forth a
s to having set a regular time for
meetings. We used to be Thursdays from 4:00 to 5:30 and quite a number of people
had reserved that time. Today's meeting was kind of like an interim meeting because
we decided last Thursday was not a good time.

>> ADAM: R
ight.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: So we haven't really necessarily agreed on what the best time
is. I know that at least one person can't do Thursdays and prefers a Wednesday time.
And I feel like, oh, we can't keep switching this around, especially between now and
-
-

you know, now and November 1, how many
--

should we aim to have two phone
calls or just one?

>> ADAM: This is Adam. I mean, if you're asking
--

I mean, if you're asking
--

so
what is a reasonable time for me to scrub on documents for a while and spit som
ething
out so that people have a chance to look at it before the next meeting, then, you know,
I guess I'd say that perhaps, you know, we should
--

we should plan on the next
meeting being at the end of next week sometime or perhaps early the follow week.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yeah. Jean, I know you had a conflict on Tuesdays. Could you
make the 18th or is that going to be a problem for you? Because there is quite a
number of people today worked out to be a good time, the Tuesday midafternoon.

>> JEAN: Oh, I hav
e a standing meeting at this time. Weekly staff meeting. But I
mean, I can miss it occasionally, but to miss it ongoingly would not
--

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yeah.

>> NAOMI: This is Naomi. I thought the only reason that Thursday was not good was
because it's a c
onflict with the Jewish holiday and once that holiday is over, does
Thursday not work for everybody?

>> ADAM: Well, unfortunately this is a bad month for Jewish holidays. Thursday the
13th is one as well.

>> NAOMI: But shortly we'll have atoned for that an
d then we can move on.
(chuckle).

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay. Well, then I guess we'll have to
--

I'll try to do this other
polling by email, but should we try for Wednesday the 19th at 4:00 p.m.? Is that
--

I
will give a few different times on the Wednesday. I

think that's about two weeks from
now. And it means that we probably would have one more week if we needed another
phone call before the November 1 meeting.

>> Cue John card.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Yes, John.

>> JOHN: So working group 3 has a call on that date
from 1:00 to 2:30. The 4:00
p.m. time works out for me but there is a conflict directly with another VPAAC group
from 1:00 to 2:30.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay. Thank you.

>> ADAM: And, Susan, it's Adam. I have a call that I host that starts in 38 seconds,
so we
're going
--

we're going to schedule the next
--

the next thing by email, are we?

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Email, but we're assuming it will be (inaudible) that date,
within that date.

>> ADAM: Okay.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Okay? Thank you, everyone, and I think we're ma
king
progress, believe it or not.

>> ADAM: Okay. Thank you.

>> SUSAN KIMMEL: Bye
-
bye.

Copyright © 2011

Show/Hide Header

Show/Hide Chat