Welcome:
Susan Turnbull, General Services Administration (GSA), opened the meeting by welcoming everyone to the continuing collaboration workshop series, which was formed about one year ago. The purpose of the January 15 workshop is to explore the societal innovation potential and realities of online community networks. Susan used slides to review the overall workshop series purpose and multiple sponsors. These slides are in the attached presentation file. Susan noted that all the participants present today should consider themselves as contributors to the meeting, not visitors.
Susan described two handouts distributed during the workshop:
· Action Plan for FY 2002 - Federal Architecture and Infrastructure Committee of the CIO Council, Universal Access Working Group –summarizes the goals, initiatives, benefits and partner organizations associated with the workshop series.
· A brief summary of the guide, Extending Digital Dividends: Public Goods and Services That Work for All that will be available through the Federal Architecture and Infrastructure Committee soon.
Susan noted that the workshop is longer today, allowing for more networking and a demonstration of Open Source applications after lunch.
Overview and Implications of Knowledge Sharing Through Communities of Practice (Thematic Groups) at the World Bank – Presented by Lesley Shneier, World Bank
Susan introduced Lesley Shneier, Senior Knowledge and Learning Officer from the World Bank. Lesley is from South Africa and has a background in social work, human resources and personnel management, and management consulting with a focus on organizational change management.
Lesley described the World Bank’s work. Lending has been the World Bank’s main thrust, providing approximately $15 – 30 billion dollars a year to reduce poverty. World Bank profits are about $1 billion a year. In 1996, the World Bank president, J.D. Wolfensohn stated “By 2000, we will be the ‘Knowledge Bank’…” and in 1999 the World Bank mission statement was “To fight poverty with passion and professionalism for lasting results…To help people help themselves and their environment by providing resources, sharing knowledge…”.
The “Knowledge Bank” is a continuous process of creating knowledge, sharing knowledge and applying knowledge. The World Bank has chosen to use the term ‘Knowledge Sharing’ instead of the traditional term ‘Knowledge Management’ because everyone easily understands the phrase- it’s plain English. Communities of Practice are known as Thematic Groups, where participants have a common interest in particular topic areas. The thematic groups share a common passion for a given subject regardless of the task and time.
Lesley described why Knowledge Sharing is so important to the World Bank:
· Business Survival requires the sharing of knowledge
· Lending alone cannot accomplish the mission of poverty reduction
· Knowledge sharing can bring in new actors with know how
The World Bank’s Knowledge Sharing journey started with thematic groups focused on particular topic areas. The advisory services connected people to these thematic groups, and the regions and countries instill local insight. Although knowledge sharing is fairly transparent, there are some internal groups that are resistant to the change- those in “control roles” such as procurement and HR. The next phase of implementation will include local communities outside of the Bank.
Lesley explained that the “heart and soul” of the World Bank knowledge sharing are the Thematic Groups. These groups connect the people that know information with the people who want to know about the information, all on a voluntary basis. The process of incorporating knowledge sharing is engrained in the business practices throughout the World Bank. Technology is only the enabler to the sharing of knowledge- it’s not the driver. The Key enabler is the Community. It is important to work in close coordination with the IT organization to leverage existing technology that participants are familiar with.
Knowledge sharing focuses on the people, where knowledge management tends to focus on the tools needed to share. Lesley explained that knowledge sharing is really about changing the organizational culture. Work is done horizontally across the organization in close partnership with the clients. The 116 thematic groups currently at the Bank have improved organizational morale, and established inclusive business models encouraging the seamless sharing of information.
The World Bank has seen measurable results from its knowledge sharing including:
· Quality improvement – only 12% of projects were ‘at risk’ at the end of FY 01, down from 30% five years earlier
· Efficiency – a reduced report production time from 5 staff weeks to 2 staff weeks
· Effectiveness – although surveys show improvements, more work is needed to adapt the knowledge to the clients needs
The next wave of knowledge sharing will include the building of local communities of practice, such as the UCCI- network of mayors of 10 capital cities of Ibero-America. This is an interactive website that promotes knowledge sharing, and web-based communication among the region’s municipal practitioners
Lesley described the challenges that the World Bank faces as
· Mainstreaming – keep the cultural change moving forward
· Budget cuts – 90% less money for thematic groups
· Competing demands on time
· Moving the focus from knowledge to learning
It is essential to model the behavior – be very inclusive – anyone can come to meetings, read the minutes, access the websites.
Knowledge sharing needs to be embedded in the core business, it is about people and behaviors, and is a bit like gardening. Don’t pull up the roots to see how plants are doing. Be sure to eradicate the weeds and pests.
Discussion:
Q: Able to engage people outside of the Bank staff in knowledge sharing?
A: Yes, all of the thematic groups contain external partners. There is joint membership in all the groups. Three-quarters of the Bank staff resides in DC, the remaining quarter of the staff are distributed remotely.
Q: How does the ‘weeding’ occur?
A: Weeding is not easy. Not much activity in some of the thematic groups- weeding is easier here. The thematic groups need to account for what they are doing with their budgets. Sharing of knowledge is also part of individuals’ performance review.
Q: Is there less resistance to knowledge sharing over time?
A: 70% of informal learning happens in thematic groups. The understanding of knowledge sharing has increased, but resistance is still present.
Q: What are the mechanisms for clients to contribute to knowledge sharing and learning?
A: There are several ways: 1) Within some thematic groups, clients are invited to participate and contribute. The discussions that occur are very interactive and participative with a wealth of ideas discussed. 2) By actively helping groups form communities with the capacity to share knowledge among themselves, such as the Mayors group. 3) Working at a government policy level- what do they need to be able to take advantage of the connectivity.
Q: How do you know who knows what or who knows who?
A: We tried to build a “yellow-pages” of expertise, but this was not very successful. The method of informal self-selection and individuals’ reputation worked best; this builds a level of trust among the community. Some insisted on “proof” of expertise before including anyone in such a listing. We encouraged individual participation in communities. Communities know who knows what.
Q: Did you perform a mapping of network efficiencies?
A: No, we attempted to perform some social network analysis, but no one was interested.
Q: What is the influence of tools from IT?
A: Need to work closely with IT. Thematic groups wouldn’t accept multiple tools for cataloguing information due to the learning demands. They insisted on a single way of cataloging information- one cataloging tool.
Q: Does the cross-pollination include Mayors from elsewhere?
A: Yes. There is a lot of interest from elsewhere e.g., Philippines connectors link to other groups.
Q: Where are the Bank’s lending decisions made?
A: Lending decisions are made in the regions. Most thematic group members are in the regions as well.
Q: Are there 3-way tensions among the geographic decision makers, program sectors and thematic groups?
A: The groups are not so discrete. The country focus has been dominant since 1987. Tensions are between the sectors and country.
Q: How did you include knowledge sharing in performance standards?
A: The director decided to include it in performance standards, but in took a full year to incorporate.
Q: How do you measure knowledge sharing?
A: It is difficult to measure. The harder it is to measure, the more successful you’ve been at mainstreaming the practice.
Q: How do you assess your success? You mentioned improvements in production time, for example.
A: Survey and focus groups of staff and clients are useful in this assessment.
Q: How are you dealing with information disclosure?
A: Disclosure and harmonization are big issues. World Bank is attempting to allow full disclosure on most information rather quickly. Certain data cannot be fully disclosed. Harmonization is the transparency (uniformity) of the process to work collaboratively with other donors.
Q: What about the mayors’ network communicating with mayors in the U.S.?
A: That’s a good idea.
Overview and Implications of Knowledge Sharing Through Communities: Global Networks that Nurture Long-distance Relationships and Local Ties Among the Federal Aviation Administration’s Communities– Presented by Bob Turner, FAA
Susan introduced Bob Turner, Director of the Team Technology Center at the FAA as a lead expert in knowledge management in the Federal Government. Bob has an undergraduate business degree from the University of Maryland, and a graduate degree in psychology from Boston University. He was also involved in the Army organizational effectiveness program.
Bob thanked the Department of Navy (DoN) for their sponsorship of the C-port (Building Communities of Practice) CD series. The Department of the Navy Enterprise Knowledge Management team has developed a series of 8 CD’s documenting their findings on the topic. In the upcoming weeks, the DoN will have an e-learning CD available for distribution.
Bob recommended that participants interested in the topic of knowledge management (KM) visit www.stevedenning.com since he is a noted expert on KM and his forte is storytelling for message delivery. Bob referenced a 1990 Harvard Business Review article by Elliott Jack titled, Industrial Society. The article discusses the organizational hierarchical structure and how the traditional hierarchy can be replaced over time by leveraging the knowledge of individual workers. Harnessing the capacity and knowledge of the individual worker and investing in overall education forms the basis for communities of practice. These communities of practice are critical to the core business model of a knowledge management organization.
Bob mentioned that David Walker, Comptroller General of the US, has stated that human capital (HC) is on the ‘high-risk’ list for US Government. There is a high capability for human capital management in government, but when it is measured, it often gets low scores. The challenge as government moves forward is to determine how to raise the bar on human capital management. The investment formula starts with the transfer of human capital knowledge to an organization, and then to create social capital. The social capital can then be used to transfer the knowledge to customer capital when an organization goes to market. These structures of informal networks through communities of practice accelerate the transfer of knowledge or ‘know-how’ throughout an organization.
Bob recommended several resources for information including:
· Steve Denning - KM website resource
· Book by Etienne Wenger that will be published soon (parts of the book are already available on the Communities of Practice CD)
· Book Spell of the Senses, by David Abraham
· Book In Good Company: How Social Capital Makes Organizations Work, by Laurence Prusak and Don Cohen
Discussion:
Q: Regarding the stability of hierarchies- is there another comparable formal structure?
A: No, there aren’t any alternatives.
Q: Has the hierarchy been augmented with the web?
A: Yes, the value of the hierarchy does not imply that we need all the layers. E-mail allows for the jumping the layers. Michael Schrage the publisher of the book, No More Teams! Mastering the Dynamics of Creative Collaboration states that e-mail is not an effective collaboration tool. Peter Drucker states that the economic imperative is to make knowledge workers more productive. Tom Peters and others say that the future of work is characterized by not being able to measure what we do.
Q: How does a community of practice differ from a virtual team?
A: See handout ‘What Size Communities?’ page 2 refers to the team comparison matrix and page 3 compares COPs to other organizations and activities. These matrices are also available on the C-port CD. Although all available CDs have been distributed, more are being mastered and will be available next month for distribution at the March workshop. Also recommend looking at Groove for COP development models.
Q: Whose job is it to sift through the good information?
A: The knowledge centers are responsible for this. Watch for DoN’s work on taxonomy development.
Q: What is the right size for a community of practice?
A: With the appropriate infrastructure capability, the size of communities of practice really doesn’t matter. The Shell Corporation had very large communities and they functioned as well as smaller groups.
Q: What form of hierarchy is appropriate for moving forward?
A: There is not one absolute hierarchical model that is all encompassing for organizations today. The Dean of Harvard Law School in the book Corporations Law discusses a different hierarchy model as seen in the diagram below. This model works well because it is efficient and communications flow well throughout the organization. With the Internet decreasing the cost of communication, organizations should flatten out. There is a generation of leaders that feel threatened by the informal networks forming in organizations.
Bob suggested that participants visit a site was developed by young field commanders in the Army who felt that the Army would need to change over the coming years to grow with the times. The training provided on this site is stellar and rivals conventional training methods.
Susan thanked the presenters. She invited the participants to reflect on how the ideas of the morning related to their work as they introduced themselves to the group.
Tom Tate noted that January 15, 2002 (the day of our workshop) marks the 100th anniversary of 4-H youth serving as tech transfer leaders in American communities. Digital literacy is an essential skill needed by all citizens if our society if it is to flourish. All tech savvy leaders are encouraged to adopt a small group of youth in their own communities to start or join a youth centered 4-H Technology Leader Team. A few hours each month will raise the digital literacy in your community making it a healthier place to live. To learn more about youth tech opportunities: or call 202-720-2727.
Following about thirty minutes of reflections and introductions as prelude to the networking lunch, Susan reminded everyone of the next workshop on February 19th workshop, which will include presentations by:
1.) Neil Scott, Stanford University, demonstrating a natural interaction interface and
2) Brand Neimann, EPA, demonstrating a natural language interface to an XML website. EPA further explored an approach identified during our research on the Extending Digital Dividends guide. In addition, Bob Andrews and Karl Hebenstreit have offered to share their experience with Quick Place as we pilot its use by this group. Bob Turner, FAA, has offered to host our group using the collaborative space being piloted by the Department of Health and Human Services.
Workshop Contributors:
Mark Addleson – George Mason University, Director MNPS of Organizational Learning, Mark.Addleson@sppmail.gmu.edu, 703-993-3804
Owen Ambur – US Fish and Wildlife Service, CIO Council XML working group, ambur@erols.com, 703-358-2138
Dion Anderson Consultant Specialist, EDS dion.Anderson@eds.com, 703-742-1605
Kim Andersson, USAF/SC, Kim.andersson@pentagon.af.mil , 703-588-61832138
Bob Andrew – ICF Consulting, bobandrew@icfconsulting.com 703-934-3446
Joyce Bissonette – CyberSeniors/CyberTeens, jbissone@vt.edu , 703-228-6425
John Black – Groove Networks, jblack@groove.net , 757-589-5642
Jaime Bonilla, The CDM Group, jbonilla@cdmgroup.com , 301-654-6740
Elaine Brett – EMB Associates, info@embassociatestrategy.com , 301-805-5752
George Brett – Internet2, ghb@internet2.edu , 202-256-1304
Lee Butler – Delphi Network Inc., delphinet@worldnet.att.net , 410-997-0782
Susan Chase – World Bank, schase@worldbank.org , 703-601-3592
Lowell Christy, City of Mind, Lowell@cityofmind.com , 301-519-2807
Eileen Collins – National Science Foundation (NSF), ecollins@nsf.gov , 703-292-7768
June Crosby - Senior Consultant, EDS, june.Crosby@eds.com 703-742-1605
Jim Disbrow – US Department of Energy, jim.disbrow@eia.doe.gov , 202-586-1868
Judy Douglas - Principal, EDS, judy.Douglas@eds.com , 706-742-2948
John Drake – Schafer Corp., jdrake@snap.org , 703-526-1789
Mark Frautschi – Independent Consultant, frautschi@bigmindmedia.com, 301-562-8506
Nader Ghobadi – Technical Director, FAA TTC, nader.ghobadi@faa.gov
Nick Guzman – George Washington U., Schl. of Medicine, guzmann@gwu.edu 202-995-5710
Karl Hebenstreit – Systems and Accessibility specialist, GSA, karl.hebenstreit@gsa.gov 202-2426
Kerry Joels – Dept. of Health and Human Services, kerry.joels@hhs.gov , 202-205-9332
Bob Knisely – Independent Consultant, knizzo@aol.com , 709-932-6244
Larry Koskinen – Independent Consultant lkoskinen@aol.com , 703-538-6902
Debbie Lenimeyer – Department of the Navy, CIO, lenimeyer.debra@hq.navy.mil , 703-538-6902
Jacquelyn Lilly – Department of State Consultant, lillyjr@state.gov ,202-203-7096
Vesnier Lugo – Office of Minority Health, vlugo@opsdhs.dhhs.gov 301-4433341
Denis McGlynn – Groove Networks, dmcglynn@groove.net 301-3257694
Guadalupe Pacheco – HHS, Office of Minority Health, gpacheco@osoph.dhhs.gov , 301-443-3379
Lori Perine – Interpretech, lperine@interpretech.com 202-266-0044x101
John Scott – Center for Public Service Communications, jcscott@cpsc.com 703-536-5642
Lesley Shneier – World Bank, Sr. Knowledge and Learning Officer, lshneier@worldbank
202-203-7096
William E Smith – Organizing for Devleopment –An International Initiative, aic@odii.com, 202-364-7209
Frank Sowa – Department of the Navy, sowa.frank@hq.navy.mil , 703-601-0047
Tony Stanco – George Washington University, Cyberspace Policy Institute, stanco@seas.gwu.edu 202-994-5513
Tom Tate – United States Department of Agriculture, ttate@reeusda.gov 202-720-2727
Susan Turnbull – GSA, Senior Program Advisor, susan.turnbull@gsa.gov , 202-501-6214
Bob Turner – FAA, Director of Team Technology Center, bob.turner@faa.gov 202-376-7129
Thom Wysong – Development Infostructure, twysong@devis.com 703-525-6485
Workshop Purpose:
To explore the societal innovation potential and realities of On-line Community Networks generally and how to begin using an on-line community space to complement our workshop series.
Welcome:
Susan Turnbull, from the General Services Administration (GSA), and on behalf of her co-Chair, George Brett, opened the meeting by welcoming everyone to the continuing collaboration workshop series. She introduced the topic of the day, “On-Line Community Networks”. Susan noted that everyone attending is considered a contributor, rather than visitors. Susan introduced Lowell Christy and Tony Stanco as presenters for the day’s workshop.
Susan reviewed the handouts. The “Federal Architecture and Infrastructure (AI) Committee, Universal Access (UA) Working Group” handout is group’s charter. The “Extending Digital Dividends: Public Goods and Services that Work for All” is a summary of the first product of Collaboration Expedition contributors. The summary was included in a US report that was presented in Berlin recently. The complete guide will be published on CD, hard copy, and on-line soon. This represents the first 6 months work by the Collaboration Expedition workshop contributors. It also represents a blueprint for the future workshops.
Susan introduced Nader Ghobadi, Director of the Technology Center, FAA. Nader would be providing a presentation after the lunch break on the new Community of Practice CD that has been produced for the Department of the Navy. Copies of the CD were made available to workshop attendees.
The next workshop meeting will be held 1/15/2002. Lesley Shneier, Senior Knowledge Management Officer at the World Bank and Bob Turner, Director of the FAA’s Team Technology Center will be presenters. Leslie will share the World Band experience with more than one hundred Communities of Practice. Bob will present on the Virtual Team and Community of Practice activities they are supporting both within FAA and government-wide.
Bob’s group led the development of the Department of Navy Community of Practice CD that Nader will introduce today. The workshop on 2/19/2002 will include presentation by Brand Niemann, EPA. on the Natural Language Interface to Web Content pilot and Neil Scott, Stanford University on Natural Interaction Systems. The workshop on 3/19/2002 may focus on several E-Government projects with a strong focus on XML and the need for coordination among the XML components of the e-gov projects
George Brett, co-chair of the workshop series and Chief Information Architect of End-to-End Performance at Internet2 was introduced. George has been involved in higher education and IT since 1980. He was involved with Gopher, Archie, and helping to introduce the World Wide Web to the United States.
Overview and Implication of the October 2001 report “Online Communities: Networks that Nurture Long-distance relationships and Local Ties” by the Pew Internet and American Life Project by
Lowell Christy, Chairman, City of Mind
Susan introduced Lowell Christy. Lowell is a Social Entrepreneur who focuses on intercultural problem solving and IT management. Lowell’s background includes research at the Stanford Research Institute and telemedicine projects like “Health House”.
Lowell began the presentation by asking, “How do you in the government pursue evolution in government services”? Guidelines include:
The Art of Associating Together – government is moving from the idea of e-communities to e-citizenship. The real frontier is e-citizenship.
Redefining online communities – have to define the parties involved. “Conversation”, a generative activity, is the next frontier.
Lowell pointed out that critics had stated the Internet would cause people to abandon their previous face-to-face relationships and local ties. The Pew report found otherwise. In fact “glocalization”, a term coined by Barry Wellman, seems closer to fact – the Internet expands social worlds and binds people to where they live. For example, 84% of American Internet users have explored 4 or more online groups. 28 million people use the Internet to interact with their local community.
Lowell cited a number of other studies that demonstrate that online communities are self-forming. These groups tend to expand the traditional walls that surround a group and bind the individuals or smaller groups together into larger communities. These groups tend to not be grouped into traditional hierarchies. A few examples provide insight to this phenomenon. First, the number of American Internet users participating in online groups after the September 11 attacks increased by 33%. Another example was a group of breast cancer patients who were given computers by the University of Wisconsin and training to use them to communicate. Researchers found the women who were involved early and communicated often with the group were of lesser education levels than those who had higher education levels. Another pilot project in Cleveland demonstrated that homeless individuals would access kiosks to communicate to a network of doctors and fellow homeless individuals to ask questions and receive medical advice. These individuals sought advice at a much higher rate after this form of access was provided. This research contradicts previous thought that communication is only effective if done via word of mouth or through traditional communication lines. According to Lowell, this is one reason why the dotcoms became dotgones. Many of the services placed online were simply repetitions of previous business practices and communication lines that assumed the same user communities.
Many people who are new to online services tend to embrace online communities quickly as an alternative to traditional communication and community involvement. Newcomers tend to be younger and represent a higher percentage of minorities than other groups. It should be noted that minorities still lag behind other groups in access to online communities and the Internet, in general. Once again, the problem is one of access, as demonstrated in the pilot project in Cleveland. More examples were presented to further understanding of this concept:
· “Learning Citizenship” by Juliet Mayfield demonstrated that there were ways to set up a government system that allowed citizens to take ownership by creating new communities. This facilitates the move from e-government to e-citizenship.
· "Chaordic Systems and Human Futures" by Dee Hock, Founder and CEO Emeritus of VISA, stated that for communities to flourish a commons or “white” space had to be created that would allow all access.
· Concept of “Generalized Reciprocity” by Peter F. Drucker states that rises in participation are almost always linked to circumstances of high challenge, when personal skills are used to the utmost, generating reciprocity between the participants.
The above all led to a central concept of accepted ambiguity. By enabling the citizenry to self-organize outside of traditional governmental control, government agencies will have to deal with “many democracies”. The traditional push of governmental information from one -to- many will be replaced with a many- to- many relationship. In addition, the self-organizing nature of this type of citizen involvement will also lead to a loss of alignment of agency priorities with citizen priorities. Lowell noted that this type of arrangement will lead to emergent intelligence, but will likely be difficult to gather from a government perspective.
There have been three (3) cybernetic revolutions in the world. These include:
· 1620 - Bacon’s “Novum Organum” where the concept of group participation leads to expanded/shared knowledge (scientific method).
· 1776 - Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” where the concept of the “Invisible Hand” in the world marketplace is explained.
· 1776-1787 – Introduced a key idea behind democracy, that all people “know something”.
These concepts contributed to the notion that communities produce value through their ability to self-organize and increase the collective knowledge of the whole. The concept of e-democracy takes this evolution another step and leads to the question that has to be asked by government agencies: “Whose knowledge is it”? As explained, conversation often produces an outcome that is not expected from the process. The challenge of today’s government is to provide resources to its citizenry to allow democracy to flourish and to understand how to gather and interpret the knowledge generated by these communities that support better and more informed governance.
Dialogue:
Q: George Brett – Is there a difference between asynchronous conferences and email?
A: Lowell – They are similar. Asynchronous is new to learning.
Q: George Brett – Email is a “push” technology whereas chat is a “pull”. Don’t most leaders shy away from pull technologies?
A: Lowell – There is a tendency within government to use push technology, such as email. There seems to be discomfort in using “chat” as it is anonymous. This is due to a concept of leadership, where you lead by telling or pushing information in a one- to -many fashion. The idea that the ephemera, or leftover artifacts of conversations may be the most important information produced is often lost in this arrangement. If you examine non-traditional face –to-face communication, the ephemera provide the spindles to the center of the wheel to allow the observer to understand the context of the speaker.
Comment: George Brett – This is why we see a resurgence of video teleconferencing.
Lowell explained that the concept of a Cognitive Spatial Environment allows an individual participant to experience government rather than just receive information about it. The idea can be best explained using the Amazon.com model where a user is given and continues to build a profile. In a Cognitive Spatial Environment, the community is organized and presented to the user in a context he/she understands. This leads to a sense of reduced risk and higher levels of participation, purpose and accountability.
Q: Rick Smith - Accountability or Responsibility?
A: Accountability, actually. Example provided is a pregnant teenage Japanese girl seeking information regarding medical and cultural issues related to her situation. She does not want to sort through 130,000 textbooks about teen pregnancy, but wants to communicate with other Japanese teenage, expectant mothers. This is the information that is most valuable to her. Therefore, she is accountable to the community to accurately portray her context in order to receive useful information that will guide her.
Q: Rick Smith - Isn’t she actually responsible for this rather than accountable?
A: She is responsible for her context to get the information she needs. However, she is accountable to the community in providing future context to other participants. The concept of Network Exchange Learning Value is useful here to understand that communities will self-regulate and determine responsibilities of the group.
Comment: George Brett – Introduced idea that information flows are islands and peninsulas rather than networks and hubs.
Lowell responded that he believed this was true. The evolution of Mosaic is an example where the value of the conversation is relational. Only in context is the information valuable. How do you set up the information so it is experienced rather than transaction- based?
Comment: Larry Koskinen – Democratic government was designed to speed up decision making, yet our government is ponderous. Trust, learning and ephemera are the “things” that are of value. The current environment is not adequate to deal with the complexities of the modern world.
Comment: Lowell – The World Trade Center disaster provided an example of self-organizing groups. Small groups worked together in an extremely time sensitive situation to help each other survive. The current technological environment does not allow this to happen due to the pervasive central government thinking by our agencies. Further, government cannot use the family model as a starting point. This model is binary (one parent – one child) and today’s model is many- to- many. The intelligence in a community is in the linkages, not the brain.
Comment: – The context of the conversation is very important, however, communicating within the wrong context can lead to “bootstrap hell”.
Bill Smith Comment: – The most effective way to avoid this is to organize around purpose. Research has demonstrated there are at least 5 dimensions or fields required to relate the individual to the whole.
Comment: Lowell – Would propose that this would be like a “disco ball” whereby one ray of light can be refracted into an unlimited number of views (contexts). He explained that the octagon has been used throughout history because the human brain can only understand 7 dimensions plus itself. This suggests a membrane rather than a Ft. Knox model, similar to the Chinese concept that “all currents go to me”. The Chinese people routinely sign their artwork to demonstrate to successive generations who owned it, and that they had cultivated themselves as individuals to be worthy of improving on the artwork. This provides context to the origin of the artwork.
Susan thanked Lowell for the presentation and concluded with a few comments. She asked the group to imagine the state of government online in 15 years. She challenged the group to explore how to become a Community of Practice demonstrating how to be a pacesetter, through a shared purpose of citizen-centric government, toward better ways of bringing forth common value.
Lunch Break
Demonstration of “Building Communities of Practice – Creating Value Through Knowledge Communities” CD by Nader Ghobadi.
Nader Ghobadi is the Director of the TeamTechnology Center, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Nader explained that the CD contained over 1000 pages of data about Communities of Practice across government. He explained that within the Team Technology Center at the FAA, their focus was on building Communities of Practice by providing tools and a conducive environment. Presently they host 7 communities, including one for the Indian Health Service that serves over 500 tribes.
Comment: George Brett – An example is Mobil Oil that used the Community of Practice model to deal with engineering issues. The difficulty they encountered was one of closure of issues and governance of the community.
Comment: Nader – The UA group from his observation may be a Community of Interest rather than a Community of Practice. He emphasized that current tools could facilitate progress to shared results.
Open Source as International Social Movement and Driver for Global Development and On-Line Community Foundation by Tony Stanco
Tony Stanco is a Senior Policy Analyst, Cyberspace Policy Institute of George Washington University and Founder of FreeDevelopers.net
Susan Turnbull introduced Tony Stanco. Susan stressed that open source software was a means to reduce barriers to entry.
Tony began with a discussion of a previous presentation to the World Bank outlining how developing countries might use open source software as a springboard to economic development. This principle holds true for states within the U.S.
Presently, the U.S. is the world leader in IT and software development. This is critical to the economy and international power. Software is a high value industry, with profits approaching 85%. This presents a unique opportunity for developing countries to skip past the industrial revolution to the IT revolution by adopting open source standards. This is a critical international issue.
Open source software is not just technological. It is about democracy, equality, and human rights. It acts as an economic equalizer much the same as a policy. These rights may be too important to leave to companies.
The open source free software community created LINUX outside of the international corporate arena. LINUX has 29 % of the server market presently, while 48% of international development projects plan to use LINUX. 300,000 developers in 70 countries are using LINUX today. Why? LINUX is more secure than traditional software where backdoors can be installed. This makes it the preferred software of the National Security Agency.
India is an example of a country that has a large number of developers, yet India does not share in the wealth of the IT industry. The profit margins associated with traditional software have kept profits outside of India. If India were to invest in training its developers in LINUX or other open source software, the power of the IT industry would shift.
Q: – How does LINUX deal with the escalation of size in populations?
A: Tony – There is high resistance to hierarchical rule and structure of direction within the LINUX community. Therefore, LINUX continues to migrate along a self-organizing path. If universities were to adopt LINUX programming into their teaching, the mass of developers using the software would be more centralized in direction due to training and perspective.
Comment: Mark Frautschi – Half of the IT degrees earned in the world are currently earned by Indian students.
Comment: Tony – Correct, India’s middleclass is currently larger than the entire population of the U.S.
Adjournment:
Susan thanked everyone for coming to today’s workshop and indicated that anyone who wanted to stay and continue the discussion could do so. She invited everyone to return for the January 15th workshop.
Introductions by Workshop Attendees:
Susan Turnbull – GSA, Chair, Senior Program Advisor, Chair, UA group, and Co-chair UA Collaboration Expedition (susan.turnbull@gsa.gov)
Mark Frautschi – Independent Consultant, Shakesphere & Tao Consulting (frautschi@bigmindmedia.com)
Nick Guzman – George Washington University, School of Medicine (guzman@gwu.edu)
Sonia Guzman – Webalization, Translation and Localization Solutions (sguzman@webalization.com)
Lowell Christy – Chairman, CityofMind (lowell@cityofmind.com)
Karl Hebenstreit – GSA, Systems and Accessibility specialist (Karl.Hebenstreit@gsa.gov)
Larry Koskinen – Consultant, Digital Government (Lkoskinen@aol.com)
Tony Stanco – George Washington University, Cyberspace Policy Institute (stanco@seas.gwu.edu)
Rick Smith – Maximum Performance Group (daddy.rick@attglobal.net)
Matt Kern – PCI (Mkern@Productization.com)
Joyce Bissonette – CyberSeniors/CyberTeens (Jbisonne@vt.edu)
John Scott – Center for Public Service Communications (jcscott@cpsc.com)
John Huth – John J. Barcklow Foundation (john.huth@verizon.net)
Nader Ghobadi – Technical Director, FAA TTC (nader.ghobadi@faa.gov)
Susan Chase – World Bank (schase@WorldBank.org)
George Brett –Chief Information Architect of End to End Performance, Internet2 and Co-chair, UA Collaboration Expedition(ghb@Internet2.edu)
Hank Whittier – FASI, Department of State (Whittier@state.gov)
Judy Douglas – EDS, Principal, E-Government Community of Practice (judy.douglas@eds.com)
Paul Mrochinski – EDS, Managing Consultant, E-Government Community of Practice (paul.mrochinski@eds.com)
Jeff Guyot - EDS, Consultant Specialist, E-Government Community of Practice (jeff.guyot@eds.com)
Welcome:
Susan Turnbull from the General Services Administration (GSA) opened the meeting by welcoming everyone to the continuing collaboration workshop series and introduced the topic of the day, “The Social Potential of Universal Access”. Susan introduced Elizabeth Isele from Cyberseniors.org .
Susan noted that today’s workshop is part of a series that has been ongoing for six months. The findings from the previous workshops will be available in a guide that will be published soon. The guide discusses how to extend digital dividends of Information Technology to ensure services are accessible and equitably distributed to all. The guide will be integrated into a U.S. Federal Government report on e-government. The findings of the guide will be presented at a NSF research committee workshop led by Helen Gigley, and may influence the long-term scientific agenda.
The next workshop meeting will be held Tuesday, November 13th. Topics for this session are still being sought. The notes and email addresses of the attendees from this workshop session will be available, in addition to the previous Collaboration Expedition Workshop notes (for sessions #1-6)
Overview of 4-H CyberSeniors/CyberTeens and the CyberHealth Initiative by
Elizabeth Isele, Founder & President, Cyberseniors.org:
Susan Turnbull introduced Elizabeth Isele, Founder and President of Cyberseniors.org to provide an overview of her organization and it’s work.
Elizabeth thanked Susan and introduced CyberSeniors.org, an organization dedicated to teaching senior citizens how to use a computer and access the information world presented to them over the Internet. The program was founded in Maine 3 ½ years ago with the idea of bringing information and computers into the world of seniors. The program is supported by the 4-H and AARP. Approx. 7,500 seniors have been trained to date. The program involves teens teaching seniors how to use a computer. In some areas, retired teachers work with teens – the teens teach computer skills, the retired teachers teach “teaching” skills. CyberTeens will soon have its own designation on the Internet.
Elizabeth discussed the motivation behind the program, to help seniors overcome isolation – “put down your canes and pick up your mouse”. The program is not advertised, it is by word of mouth only. It has limited centers: Maine and 3 sites in Virginia. All courseware is developed in-house with simple presentation. Class sizes are usually kept to a maximum of 8 students, with a 2 to 1 student to teacher ratio.
Elizabeth pointed out two recent major accomplishments for the program. First, under the direction of Sonia Guzman, from Webalization, the program materials will be translated into Spanish with additional translations as appropriate. Second, a “wellness web” will be introduced with a new sponsor, National Institutes of Health (NIH). The goal is to provide tools and training to help seniors evaluate doctors and healthcare providers, provide mini-dialogues on health related issues, and research on validity/credibility of sites in an effort to help identify “rogue” web sites.
Discussion:
Q: Larry Koskinen - What government entities/units support your program?
A: Elizabeth - No explicit government support. Program is very much a grass-roots effort – starts in a community (e.g. Arlington, VA.).
A: Tom Tate – The leverage points in government are at the County level – Cooperative Extension Services offices located in each of the 3,150 counties across the country. These offices represent 6 million teenagers (4-H) and 600,000 precommitted youth volunteer leaders that are eager for partners/sponsors to step up and fund needs within communities. The U.S. Federal government supports the Cooperative Extension offices with a mission to improve the quality of the communities.
Q: Rick Smith – What is the relationship between Virginia Tech and the Cooperative Extension?
A: Tom Tate – Virginia Tech is the Virginia Land Grant University. The Federal Sponsor organization is the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The state office is the Land Grant University (affiliated with USDA) in each state. The Cooperative Extension Agency is at the County level. If a county does not have an office or the expertise needed to address a community issue, they can leverage the Land Grant University, which in Virginia is Virginia Tech.
Susan Turnbull commented on the idea that International organizations are more familiar with the Cooperative model. The model will expand behind the power of the developing infrastructure as it becomes easier to use, more secure.
Overview of a Cultural Context for Security by Mark Frautschi, Consultant,
Shakespeare & Tao Consulting:
Susan Turnbull introduced Mark Frautschi, a consultant who has been participating in the workshop series. Mark has contributed to the U.S. Federal Government in the areas of Y2K and the Digital Divide.
Mark began a discussion on how one would accomplish establishing a cultural context for security while providing universal access by asking the following questions;
Q: “What are some of the tensions a renewed emphasis on security may present?”
A: Freedom vs. Control, Time/Convenience vs. Thoroughness, Privacy: Who and How much?
Q: “How may we effectively manage these?”
A: The issue of security engages issues of resistance, however, resistance can be used as a learning opportunity. Polarity Management is a tool that can be used.
Mark briefly discussed the contents of a book on Polarity Management by Barry Johnson entitled, Polarity Management, Identifying and Managing Unsolvable Problems. The idea here is that a Polarity is not a problem – a problem can be solved, whereas a polarity is comprised of two opposites or compliments (poles) without an end point or conclusion. Security and Universal Access can be represented as a polarity, with polarity management the tool used to address issues and work toward ideas for resolution.
For example, Mark recounted an experience of his in a local diner where he saw a poster that had a cut out of a Washington Post article on Section 508, with a hand-written message, “look what the government is spending your tax money on - web-pages for the blind.” The originator of this poster did not receive the message about Universal Access for all citizens.
Polarity participants are the “Bearers of Tradition” and the “Agents of Change”. Polarity is subjective. It is dependent upon an individual’s values and only works if it fits those values. IT cannot be forced upon someone else and work unless it fits his or her values.
Discussion:
Owen Amber commented that a polarity could be derived from tacit vs. explicit knowledge. Problems are caused by tacit knowledge, e.g. the Taliban “know” Israelis destroyed the World Trade Center. The U.S. Federal Government does not manage records or information (explicit knowledge) effectively, e.g. “Is it better to infiltrate a terrorist organization or understand their language?
Mark commented that perhaps we should look to examine the terrorist inside us to gain a better understanding. Invite more of the Intelligence and Security communities to this workshop.
Lowell Christy commented that the problem is Polarity Creation. The media focus is on visible images that it freezes, and influences how we view things – access for those with disabilities vs. the cost to society.
Mark suggested invitations to the media. Rex Brooks (participating via telephone) commented that dialogue, like the one currently engaged, is polarity management.
Susan restated the question about who was missing from this audience. She informed the participants that future meetings would be held in a larger room to accommodate more people – look to invite appropriate additional participants. Susan used the analogy of closed source code to tacit knowledge with open source code analogous to explicit knowledge that allows validation. Security and Universal Access need access to each other.
Nick Guzman summarized by suggesting that issues, which form a polarity, are used to attack the validity of the other; secure vs. non-secure, open vs. closed. Opinions are created and used/managed for mission fulfillment.
Janina Sajka commented that a paradox exists between security and “being out in the open”, because sometimes “being out in the open is the safest place to be”.
Lunch Break
Overview of Human Markup Language by Ranjeeth Kumar Thunga, Founder &
Chairman of HumanMarkup
Susan Turnbull introduced Ranjeeth Thunga, the chair of the Oasis HumanMarkup Technical Committee.
Ranjeeth led a discussion on the potential contributions of the Human Markup Language (HumanML) to advance social trust and reduce human miscommunication.
Ranjeeth initiated the discussion by providing a brief synopsis of the missions for both the Oasis Committee; to develop the HumanML and associated specifications, and his company, HumanMarkup to provide support for Internet tools which can enhance human communication. HumanML is based on XML and RDF schema. It is not captured by a single schema, rather it is extensible, an open standard that is culturally sensitive.
HumanML seeks to emulate, or embed human contextual characteristics within the data or information that is being communicated between two or more parties. These characteristics include psychological characteristics, physical traits, speech patterns, kinesics (physical movements), and mentational (attitude attributes).
Discussion:
Ranjeeth asked what applications could benefit from HumanMarkup?
Mark Frautschi replied that essentially all communication applications could benefit, that technology would exist to allow people to communicate on their own terms, by their own design.
Own Ambur suggested that in the future all IT systems will be built around us as human beings. He suggested that “stove-piped systems” are those which are created for us, but do not take into account who we are. Quick Silver applications are citizen centered, e.g. systems built on the elements that describe our relationship to government. HumanML can help make this happen.
Ranjeeth commented that HumanML can establish interoperability between schema and attitudes – the translation will become explicit.
Bob Andrews challenged HumanML to translate/differentiate humor? Other emotions discussed were sarcasm, intensity and irony. Ranjeeth stated that perhaps HumanML could be coded to avoid the miscommunication of irony by explicitly tagging “irony” as appropriate to those engaged in a conversation – similar to color-coding.
Nick Guzman asked Greg O'Connel from Tellme if Voice XML could be used to accomplish the aforementioned task. Greg stated that he wasn’t certain; he felt some aspects of Voice XML could be useful and that staff from his company were working with the W3C working group. Janina Sajka confirmed that the W3C working group was involved in speech markup.
Karl Hebenstreit asked if the semantic analysis from HumanML could be linked to Customer Relationship Management? Mark Frautschi indicated that Verizon already had an “irate customer” flag on their database. Ranjeeth indicated that conflict resolution systems are ideal candidates for HumanML, and could lead to synchronization of human communication styles. Unfortunately, there is no “quick-hit” strategy; the whole picture must be thought through.
Susan Turnball commented that perhaps the process of HumanML could be used to annotate dialogue after-the-fact, like theatre. Perhhaps is could capture some social pragmatics present during treaty negotiation. It would be similar to the evolution of a play – dialogue is annotated as progress is made from improvisation to dress rehearsal to opening night.
Rex Brooks commented that biometrics, such as unique retinal patterns, could be used to describe physical characteristics.
Owen Ambur mentioned that the law enforcement community had defined human physical characteristics through the “Global Justice Information Network” and recommended coordinating with them.
Susan Turnball recounted a situation with the GATT treaty in which the parties involved were too busy taking notes to engage in high-level thinking. She suggested that perhaps HumanML could be used to provide real-time feedback, allowing presenters to adjust their technique to reduce miscommunication. Mark Frautschi said that a company called Covision.com provided dynamic facilitation services (in meeting feedback) similar to what Susan had outlined, perhaps they could be contacted as a sponsor for HumanML.
Ranjeeth asked for additional ideas of organizations that would be interested in HumanML. Mark suggested contacting Craig Holcomb from NSA.
Overview briefing on the use of biometrics and smart cards to advance a trusted
environment by Fernando Podio from NIST, Information Technology Lab:
Omid Omidvar introduced Fernando Podio from NIST. Dr. Podio is the co-chair of the U.S.
Biometric Consortium and works in the Convergent Information Systems Division of NIST.
The biometric consortium is an R&D organization focusing on biometric-based personal identification/verification technology. The consortium has over 800 members from government, industry and academia.
The presentation covered these major topics in the discussion on the use of biometrics;
· Benefits of Biometrics vs. the use of passwords
· Basic Biometric Process
§ Verification (1 to 1 matching)
§ Identification (1 to N matching)
§ Enrollment – candidate must be actively enrolled in a biometric program in order for verification/identification process to work!
· Current Biometric technologies
· Trends and Driving Forces behind Biometric use and proliferation
· Advantages of combining Biometrics with smart cards
· Biometric standards and supporting organizations
Discussion:
Ranjeeth Thunga asked about average processor speed needed to access and process a biometric identifier. Fernando indicated that processor speed is measured in time and the average time to process a fingerprint is one second. When using biometrics it is best to try and avoid sending the identifier to a server for search, match and response.
Larry Koskinen asked how biometrics are being used for assessing risk. Fernando replied that biometrics are used to identify or verify a person. They cannot be used to predict an individual’s behavior.
Mark Frautschi asked if he should be concerned about identity theft when signing an electronic keypad while making a credit card purchase. Fernando indicated that this process is not biometrics. The electronic signature process dynamically recognizes the “way” an individual signs his name, not the actual signature. Given that, and depending upon the design of the system, it would be rather difficult to steal a “signature identity”. Fernanado also went on to explain that biometric data couldn’t be easily used or stolen for “rogue” purposes.
Kerry Romesburg asked if it would be easy to access data from a smartcard. Fernando said that it is not an easy task. In fact, he stated that some smart cards shut their processors down if “unauthorized” penetration/data access is tried.
Susan thanked everyone for attending today’s workshop and indicated that the room was available if people wanted to continue informal discussion. She said she will continue to work on establishing an on-line collaborative environment for the workshop series. Susan also asked for suggestions for future workshop topics.
Contributors:
Susan Turnbull – GSA, Senior Program Advisor (susan.turnbull@gsa.gov)
Owen Ambur – US Fish and Wildlife Service, CIO Council XML working group (owen_ambur@fws.org)
Bob Andrew – Principal, ICF Consulting (BobAndrew@icfconsulting.com)
Mark Frautschi – Independent Consultant, Shakesphere & Tao Consulting (frautschi@bigmindmedia.com)
Nick Guzman – George Washington University, School of Medicine (guzman@gwu.edu)
Sonia Guzman – Webalization, Translation and Localization Solutions (sguzman@webalization.com)
Lowell Christy – Chairman, CityofMind (lowell@cityofmind.com)
Karl Hebenstreit – GSA, Systems and Accessibility specialist (Karl.Hebenstreit@gsa.org)
John Huth – John J. Barklow Foundation (john.huth@verizon.net)
Larry Koskinen – Consultant, Digital Government (Lkoskinen@aol.com)
Omid Omdivar – NIST, Advanced Technology Programs Researcher, Program Manager and Technology Analyst
Fernando Podio – NIST, Information Technology Lab (podio@biometrics.org)
Rick Smith – Maximum Performance Group (daddy.rick@attglobal.net)
Tony Stanco – George Washington University, Cyberspace Policy Institute (stanco@seas.gwu.edu)
David Zilly – Consultant (vqphoto@qwest.net)
Vesnier Lugo – DMH (vlugo@osophs.dhhs.gov)
Helen Gigley – NCO (gigley@itrd.gov)
Tom Tate – USDA, Nat’l program leader Cooperative Extension agency (ttate@reeusda.gov)
Genevieve Lucas – USDA, 4H (glucas@reeusda.gov)
Greg O’Connell – Tellme., Director, Public Sector Operations (grego@tellme.com)
Kerry Romesburg - GSA, Global Account Mgr., Customer Service Center (kerry.romesberg@gsa.gov)
Ranjeeth K. Thunga – Founder and Chair, HumanMarkup (rkthunga@humanmarkup.org)
Rex Brooks – Oasis technical committee and HumanMarkup (via telephone)
Janina Sajka – American Foundation for the Blind (janina@afb.net)
Elizabeth Isele – Founder and president, Cyberseniors.org (cybersrs@maine.rr.com)
Judy Douglas – EDS, Principal, E-Government Community of Practice (judy.douglas@eds.com)
Paul Mrochinski – EDS, Managing Consultant, E-Government Community of Practice (paul.mrochinski@eds.com)
Welcome
(Refer to the "Envisioning Greater Possibility: Universal Access Expedition Workshop Series" Presentation by Susan Turnbull)
· Susan welcomed everyone to the Collaboration Expedition Workshop
· All participants joined in a moment of silence remembering the lives lost in the recent tragedy
· Susan introduced the Universal Access notebook to the group. The notebook contains information about the workgroup including past meetings and is available for review
· This Universal Access Working Group will continue to practice what, hopefully, will become commonplace in the upcoming years- diverse organizations coming together to share learning needs, strengths and experiences of the participating group
· Larry Koskinen will present a process and progress report on the "Extending Digital Dividends Report"
· Dr. Omid Omidvar is a researcher at NIST, and will discuss Smart Space- Information Technology Innovations for the Home
· Background on the Universal Access Workshop Series:
- Most of the participants are attending for the first time; group has a rotating membership with networking opportunity
- Purpose of the workshop is to open communication channels among science organizations, service agencies, universities, industry and non-profits
- Ideas discussed can feed into any number of venues that attendees participate in.
- In the 1960 and early 1970’s the National Science Foundation (NSF) had an Office of Exploratory Research, which openly discussed the effects of technology and IT accessibility on the environment, including its impact on the social, economic, political, institutional, legal and workforce implications
- In the past, Susan participated in the Congressional Clearinghouse on the Future, PPP for Universal Access, World Bank Malta, Bootstrap Alliance and Federal Information Services Application Council
- The President’s IT advisory committee is looking to expand access to information technology and identify the transformation of organizations working together to leverage technology
- The CIO Council Enterprise Interoperability and Emerging IT (EIEIT) committee funds this working group and hopes to leverage the work done here as the start of a knowledge management infrastructure
- CIO Council working groups participating in the Universal Access Workgroup are: Section 508 Accessibility, XML Working Group and Knowledge Management
- Anticipated results from Universal Access Working Group workshop series- create an opportunity to appreciate Universal Access, create faster innovation dissemination
- Arlington County government is currently piloting a multilingual capability for teaching senior citizens to use computers
Findings from the Draft Guide
(Refer to the "Extending Digital Dividends -- Process and Progress Report" Presentation by Larry Koskinen and Bob Knisley)
· Extending Digital Dividends- the project process paralleled the challenges that everyone is facing
- Urgent timelines & tight budgets
- High visibility / high stakes
- "Educated wandering" during the team’s discovery phase
- Shifting framework, goals, emphasis
- Dispersed team, working outside boundaries -- the team worked outside of their comfort zone
- IT platform incompatibilities
- Intersection of technology and policy- technology has far outstripped the policy process
- Challenge / opportunity with accommodation formats
· SES stakeholder feedback
- Universally positive feedback about public healthcare scenario -- used pattern recognition
§ Developing good stories will be key for future success
- Feedback mixed on scope, length and format
- Some resistance from mainstream managers
- Reflected predictable Rogers Model (old line managers represent "early majority" vs. "early adopters") for innovation diffusion -- may be encouraging in this context
- Some SESs would read the document themselves; others would only read the summary provided by staffers
- Received cautious optimism about the document
· New Accountability for Results
- Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA)
- Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act
- Federal eGovernment strategy in management and budget plan
- Emerging security issues and constraints related to September 11
· Core Messages
- Government service improves by opening multiple channels for delivery of services
- Internet provides way to link "isolated islands of information"
- Improve information access to information isolated groups—the digital divide—and engages mainstream media in new ways
- Central importance of Extensible Markup Language (XML) -- the government needs to promote this
· Structure of the Document
- Identifies underserved information markets -- if work is done well, underserved markets accommodated
- Provides promising practices and links to other important resources
- Provides background on relevant emerging networking technologies, collaboration, voice etc.
- Provides the "how-to" suggestions for implementation and a comprehensive bibliography; provides ability to "tear out" sections and provide those portions of the document to interested individuals -- easily compartmentalized
· Paradigm
- Identify, link and coordinate team
- Gather and relate multiple sources of information to gain insight, and recognize patterns
- Target/test tentative conclusions to stakeholder community -- important to gain stakeholder buy-in
- Refine insights and solutions
- Target/coordinate response activity
· "Law of Requisite Variety"
- "The larger the variety of actions available to a control system, the larger the variety of perturbations it is able to compensate." -- W. Ross Ashby
§ Research shows that identification of a large variety of actions is important in improving the ability to respond to changes
§ "The rapidly recombinant enterprise"
- Challenge to government is to create as many potential responses as there are potential threats
- National "neighborhood watch" -- model of geo-spatial pattern recognition
· Security Reality Creates Practical Needs
- Targeted sharing of complex information in context between enterprises
§ Robust security and integrity are important, as well as broad and targeted communication- XML is key
- Need for layering incompatible data for pattern recognition
- Broadly distributed information, but with robust security and integrity
- Need to be able to move quickly cross-platform for urgent communications
- Profound need for tele-collaboration --there is a need to move quickly across platforms for urgent communications (i.e., geo-targeted cell phone usage is upcoming in the future)
· Discussion:
- Pattern recognition is very compelling- XML encoding can build collaborative networking
- There is an important leadership role for the government to step forward in promoting XML
- The Open GIS standards consortium has recognized that standards usually take ten years to develop; by then standards are likely outdated
- Interlinking islands of automation creates challenges
- The "Extending Digital Dividends Report" needs to focus on how pattern recognition will enhance security
- In the national neighborhood watch program, citizens are given a particular area to focus on- citizens will inevitably support focused efforts
- Researchers from MIT have done a lot of work on socialization of threats
- The Santa Fe Institute is a great resource for additional information
- The National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) has an e-learning laboratory that allows for rapid learning
- Consider identifying stories from the Y2K phenomenon -- the lack of terrorism during Y2K has lulled the United States into a false sense of security
- During Y2K, 50% of Senior Program Managers were female- this has to mean something
- The CIO Council XML working group is developing an XML security agenda
- ANSI has a workshop scheduled for 10/11/01 which addresses security issues
- There are too many ongoing uncoordinated efforts related to XML
- "We the people" -- defines the inherently governmental data elements and standards to support
- Web standard 5050.2 states that government agencies must encompass open standards when developing websites
- Australia’s web standards constitute the international standard for freedom of information
Smart Space: Information Technology Innovations for Home
(Refer to the Smart Space: Information Technology Innovations for Home- Presentation by Omid Omidvar, PhD NIST)
· Advanced Technology Program
- NIST is an organization of 3300 employees
- $760 million budget
- 1200 industrial partners
- 2000 field agents
- 1550 guest researchers
- About 80% hold Ph.D.
- National measurement, and standards
· A Decade of Innovation
- 540 projects funded with 1,200 participants
- 1,027 subcontractors
- 157 Joint Ventures small and large companies
- $3.3 billion of advanced technology development funded
§ ATP Share = $1.596 billion
§ Industry Share = $1.699 billion
- Small businesses are thriving
§ > 50% of projects led by small businesses
- More than 150 Universities participate
- Nearly 20 national laboratories participate
· What is the Problem? We Need Shelter
- Quick look
§ Most expensive investment
§ Residential design fragmented
§ Architects opt out 95% of the time
- Problems
§ Gender, Age, Season, Comfort, Cost
§ Communication, Security, Energy
§ Resources, Accessibility, Style
· What is the Problem? Time and Location
- Montana, Territory 1883
§ Baking Sun, Harsh Blizzards
§ Coyotes, but No Traffic
§ Rough Timber, Mud
- Washington, DC 2001
§ Baking Sun, Harsh Blizzards
§ No Coyotes, Lots of traffic
§ Iron, Brick, Fiber Optics, etc.
· What is the Problem? Energy & Communication
- Montana, Territory 1883
§ Fire, Sunshine (Needs)
§ Shouting, Letters
- Washington, DC 2001
§ Gas, Electric, Solar
§ Phone, Internet, Pager, etc.
§ Fire, Letters (luxury)
· What is the Problem? Other Factors
- Montana, Territory 1883 / Washington, DC 2001
§ Fire, Sunshine (Needs)
§ Security and Monitoring
§ Landscape Design
§ Assisted Living
§ House Works
§ Home Education
§ Appliances
§ Hygiene and Food
· "It is in our Future Tech Plan"
- The Future has arrived, its just not evenly distributed! -- William Gibson
· A Future Home, $1000 per sq/ft
· What Drives the Price: Communication & Computing
- Bill Gate’s 11,500-square-foot house
- 30 Rooms: Seven bedrooms, 24 bathrooms (Ten full baths), six kitchens, six fireplaces
§ Style: Pacific Northwest lodge
§ Architects: James Cutler and Peter Bohlin Interior designer: Thierry W. Despont
§ Primary contractor: Sellen Construction
· What do we need? Pervasive Computing
- Pervasive Characteristics:
§ Numerous, easily accessible,
§ Often computing devices and sensors
§ Often mobile or embedded in the communication environment
§ Connected to a ubiquitous network structure
§ Cooperating with existing systems
· What do we gain? Smart Room…
- Imagine a Meeting Room that
§ Automatically takes meeting minutes
§ Takes commands from attendees and applies them differently.
§ Knows who is talking
§ Provides security based on face and voice identification
§ Supports spoken access to support Systems
· What needs to come together to make it happen…
· What do we need in Computing?
- Home as Smart Space
- Perceptual Interfaces
§ Mobility
§ Networking
§ Pervasive Devices -- allow for interconnectivity of devices (i.e., computer, PDA, phone, etc)
§ Information Access
§ Intelligence -- devices that adapt to the surrounding environment
· What do we need in Computing?
- Perceptual Interfaces
§ Dialog processing -- will allow for voice recognition within minutes
§ Face & Iris Recognition
§ Gesture recognition -- metro systems will improve security to incorporate gesture recognition, the system identifies when something or someone is abnormal and the system records that information (today the DC metro system just records everything)
§ Microphone Arrays
§ Sensor Fusion
§ Camera Arrays
§ Motion Estimation
· What do we need in Computing?
- Mobility and Networking -- access management integrated with remote operations (i.e., smart GPS that can auto detect problems and can automatically land a plane if necessary)
§ Mobile Access Management
§ Security Management
§ Remote Operation
- Pervasive Devices -- radio activated devices that send signals to a transceiver
§ Smart Badges, Radio Tags
§ Portable Sensor
§ Smart Notepad
- Smart card will be capable of detecting danger, and sending a message to fire and rescue teams with warnings
· What do we need in Computing?
- Information Access -- indexing
- Visual Document Indexing
- Spoken Document Indexing
- Gesture Document Indexing
- Point and no click -- systems that automatically detect the users intent
- Access History
- Fingerprint, Iris scan -- smart fingerprinting will integrate scanning capability and send images direct to computer
· What do we need in Computing?
- Intelligence and Learning -- system automatically learns preferences and responds to user needs
- System Integration of CNS
- Condition based Operation
- Automatic Controls
- Remembering Things
- Auto-pilot, Safe state
- Self Check
· What is a Networked Home?
- A networked or connected home is where all the room are interconnected throughout the house and linked through a central computing system, based on bar-code technology
- Products and Companies:
§ Smart Home office - ATT, Lucent, Alcatel
§ Media Room - HDTV, Server, Phillips, Avaya
§ Living Room - e-cliner, Surr- sound, Sony (e-cliner, under development by Lazyboy, will automatically sense an individuals height and weight and adjust the chair accordingly)
§ Bedroom - Wakeup everything, Texas Inst
§ Kitchen - Smart Appliance GE, Mot, NCR
§ Perimeter - Water, light IBM, Honeywell
· Networked Home? Where are we now?
- Devices for Home:
§ Counter Intelligence, Touch Screen -- systems that have automatic sensing capability
§ Medical Nook with face recognition -- smart connection to an individual’s doctor office will automatically send the person’s medical information at given times to the physician
§ No Burn Oven, and Smart Microwave
§ Video wall and floors, Change of Scene
§ Laser tagged Meat and Vegetables
§ Smart Windows, and Garbage Can
§ Motion Estimation Devices, Sensors
· Home of the Future?
- Characteristics:
§ Transgenerational
§ Adaptable yet Customized
§ Smart and Interactive
§ Workplace accommodating
§ Sustainable Environment
§ Community Friendly
§ Secure & Comfortable
· Home of the Future? Assisted Living
- Characteristics:
§ Remote Monitoring
§ Safe & Secure
§ Remote Access
§ Interactive Appliances
§ Safe state
§ Interactive Windows and Entry
§ Self Check Feature
· Home of the Future? Modifying your home
- Home Software:
- Yard and Garden
§ Sprinkler, porch light, Motion Detector, Grill
- Bedroom
§ Lights, Humidifier, Fan, Radio, TV, blanket
- Kitchen
§ Coffee Pot, Frig, Oven, Toaster, Microwave
- Living Room
§ AC, Heater, Drapes, VCR, DVD, Stereo,
· Home of the Future? How is it Built?
- Characteristics:
§ Mass Production
§ Highly Modular
§ Scalable, Flexible
§ Highly Livable/ User Friendly
§ Highly Efficient
§ Durable and Modifiable
§ Home Building Factories
· Home of the Future? Free Radicals
- BWT:
§ New Source of Energy
§ Intelligent Material -- materials are being evaluated that automatically keep a person cool in the summer and warm in the winter
§ Social Upheavals -- needs continually change according to the environment
§ Change in Diet
§ Medical breakthroughs -- assisted living devices that automatically sound an alarm when there is a problem with a medical condition
§ Environmental Changes
§ Shortage of Resources
· Discussion:
- Federal agencies will need to play a key role in translating the "smart home" mission to homes in the future -- HUD may decide to institute standards required for compliance
- Federal role is to absorb the newness and risk of innovation
- Leadership is critical in moving the leading ideas forward
- Individuals can have a fiber optic interconnected home for the same price as a 3-inch granite countertop, if it is installed during original construction
- January 2002 -- Network Appliance Workshop is scheduled
Potential Topics for Future Workshops
· Topic of October meeting: Physical Security, Universal Access and culture (Omid Omidvar and Mark Frautschi will contribute)
· Metrics & Performance-Based Budgeting
· Advanced Technology Program focus
· Innovative Delivery Techniques
· "Swarm Intelligence" - How to structure for optimum impact
- Resource: Geodata alliance (after 11/01)
- Edward Debono -- 6 Thinking Hats
· Polarity Management
- Resource and author: Barry Johnson (University of Toledo)
- Polarity Management: Identification and Management of Unsolvable Problems -Chapter 1 of the book)
· Universal Access to Healthcare
· Innovations in Healthcare Delivery
· Privacy & Universal Access
· Government Program Design
- Acquiring and Promoting Technologies
· Emerging Technologies
- Deployment
- What is available
· How Technology can Enable Changes -- Change Paradigm
Resources / Approaches to support all workshops:
· Council for Excellence in Government - Fellows program
· Alliance Center - George Brett
· Federal Communicators Network (FCN)
· FOSE (use workshops to preview potential topics for FOSE) -- Lois Rude
· Centers for Business Innovation and Knowledge Management, Boston - Tom Davenport and Larry Pruzak
· Demonstrate Possibilities
Contributors:
Owen Amber -- US Fish and Wildlife Service, CIO Council XML working group
Bob Andrew - ICF Consulting, interested in Federal Geo Data Standards, "Open GIS standards"
Lowell Christy -- City of Mind, Consultant
Darryl Eaton -- IRS, working for the Alternative Media Center- they provide tax products in braille
Mark Frautschi -- Independent Consultant, interested in human and technological interfaces
Nick Guzman -- George Washington University, physician working in the area of Biomedical Information
Karl Hebenstreit -- GSA, Computer Specialist in CIO Office of Government-wide Policy, previously worked with Dept of Education, interested in accessibility and working in collaborative working environments
Craig Holcomb -- NSA, Technical Director for CIO, and agency coordinator for section 508
John Huth -- John J. Barlow Foundation
Bob Knisely -- Consultant, former civil servant
Larry Koskinen - Consultant
Omid Omdivar -- NIST, Advanced Technology Programs Researcher, Program Manager and Technology Analyst, specializing in biometrics and security
Rick Smith -- Gartner Group, Consultant specializing in Knowledge Management and Section 508 acessibility
Susan Turnbull -- GSA, Senior Program Advisor, Chair Universal Access Working Group of the CIO Council, Co-Chair, Universal Access Collaboration Expedition Workshops
WELCOME
Susan Turnbull, of the General Services Administration (GSA), opened the Universal Access (UA) Expedition Workshop at 9:30 a.m. in Room 555 of the National Science Foundation (NSF) Stafford II Building, 4121 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA. She stated the purpose of the workshop: to discuss and provide comments on the draft manual “Extending Digital Dividends: Putting Public Goods and Services to Work for All." This manual is expected to be a primer for non-technical executives to understand how program delivery choices affect diverse citizens in order to minimize uneven advantage and opportunity in the delivery of public goods and services. It was commissioned by Marty Wagner, Associate Administrator, Office of Governmentwide Policy, GSA.
Susan noted that today’s workshop is the fifth in a seven-part series. Remaining workshops are scheduled for August 14 and September 18. When the series ends, a second round of workshops will begin. Minutes of the workshops, to date, are available on the Web at http://coracle.ncsa.uiuc.edu/discus/.
EXTENDING DIGITAL DIVIDENDS: PUTTING PUBLIC GOODS AND SERVICES TO WORK FOR ALL – AN OVERVIEW OF THE MANUAL
Susan introduced Maureen Findorff, of the Marasco Newton Group, who led a discussion about the draft manual, “Extending Digital Dividends: Putting Public Goods and Services to Work for All." The Marasco Newton Group is under contract to GSA to help develop the manual. Maureen said that goals include improving the quality of governmentwide program delivery and Senior Executive Service (SES) decisions, raising awareness of the risks associated with digital divide, and highlighting opportunities to improve service delivery with today’s technology.
Larry Koskinen, of the Marasco Newton Group, said that the development team used several resources, including a report entitled “Falling Through the Net, Toward Digital Inclusion.” This report is fourth in a series developed by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) of the Department of Commerce. He also noted that the team worked with statistics dated October 2000, because final Census data is not yet fully available.
Larry emphasized that the digital divide is all around us. He compared the Government to the media industry, and noted the importance of projecting information into society. According to a study conducted by the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE), readers want more local news. The ASNE study cites ten dimensions of local news: proximity, safety, utility, government, education, spirituality, support, identify, recognition, and empowerment.
A discussion about statistics followed. Larry noted a sense of urgency; citizens are being left behind. Access is growing at an uneven rate. About half of Americans have access to the Internet. Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders have the highest level of Internet access at home. Blacks and Hispanics are making advances, but they are going backward in terms of the national average (i.e., they are advancing at a lower rate of speed than the rest of society). Gender differences have virtually disappeared. In many areas, women are using the Internet more than men. In fact, the largest single user group of the Internet may be 15-year-old girls. The inner city has the least penetration of Internet connectivity. Indian reservations are a particular challenge, because telephony reaches just 70 percent of the Native American community. It is encouraging that 90 percent of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) schools and libraries have access to the Internet. Larry explained that research on the correlation of Internet access and income level is available, but the Marasco Newton team did not use it in developing the manual. It was decided that the manual should not address social policy regarding economic issues.
Larry noted that the team spent a considerable amount of time researching the digital divide barriers and solutions. They identified four “actionable” categories, which are discussed in the manual. This list is not exhaustive; comments are welcome. The categories are:
· Disabled Americans – Such citizens are half as likely as the national average to have Internet access. Close to two-thirds of disabled Americans have never used the Internet (versus about one-quarter of Americans without a disability have never used the Internet).
· Citizens over age 50 who have never worked – This group of citizens is one of the least likely to have Internet access.
· Language and literacy – High school dropouts have a 12.7 percent chance of using the Internet.
· Cultural and content-related barriers – Adoption of the Internet is highest in the northwest, followed by the northeast and southwest. The southeast has the lowest adoption rate.
A group discussion about the categories followed. Providing examples of disenfranchisement and clarifying cultural and content-related barriers were suggested. Larry said that broadband access is a concern in rural areas. “Can use” and “will use” are separate issues. The Marasco Newton team chose to take a media-centric approach to the manual’s development because it believes that motivating people to reach across the digital divide requires content that is compelling, culturally relevant, and sensitive to the daily needs of people.
Owen Ambur, Co-Chair, XML Working Group, said that focusing on the end goal, rather than the means of getting there, is important. Specifically, he suggested focusing on information having characteristics and attributes of a record (e.g., reliability, authenticity, integrity, usability). He noted that XML news is available on the Web.
A meeting attendee raised health information as a concern. Larry agreed that it should be addressed in the manual, but questioned whether it requires a separate category. Maureen Findorff cautioned that the manual must be written for a governmentwide audience. It will include best practices and examples. In addition, the team hopes to include a discussion about how the government uses collaborative workspaces and other tools to effectively work with and involve the public in decisionmaking.
Bob Knisely, of the Marasco Newton Group, said that he reviewed the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) plans of 15 agencies and only 3 of them referenced information associated with the digital divide. For example, the Social Security Administration’s plan includes a list of key initiatives designed to reach customers via telephone or electronic means. The GPRA seeks to make the Federal government more accountable to the American people for the tax dollars it spends and the results it achieves. Bob expressed concern that an agency’s GPRA plan is not aligned with its strategic plan; it is focused on a limited number of items. Owen Ambur suggested defining a schema for GPRA plans, storing records in XML, and tagging performance indicators. Bob commented that XML will not solve the problem, but is certainly an enabler.
A discussion about how XML will be addressed in the manual followed. It was noted that data structure and data documentation standards are important. The manual does not require technical detail, but it should emphasize the need for standards and well documented data. It will provide examples of best practices. Owen Ambur noted XML projects at the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) that might serve as Government examples of best practices. He also noted that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has developed a standard roadmap in XML; it is available by a link at the XML Working Group site. Owen discussed the role of the XML Working Group. He said that the group supports an ISO 11179 compliant registry. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA), and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) are among the agencies that have started registries.
Larry Koskinen discussed voice application networks. He referenced an AT&T voice application called “Tell Me” that operates in a complete XML environment. Those interested in a demonstration are encouraged to dial 1-800-555-TELL. The new 511 dialing code will provide local traffic information via a voice application network. In addition, Larry noted that voice XML could benefit the GSA Blue Pages project.
Gillian Kerr, of Real World Systems, provided an overview of Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, which requires the Federal Government to purchase electronic and information technology (IT) that is accessible to people with disabilities. When originally enacted in 1986, Section 508 was unclear and lacked incentives. In 1998 it was rewritten and strengthened as part of the Workplace Investment Act. At that time, the Access Board was asked to clarify the definition of accessible and publish standards, which were announced in December 2000. The law went into effect in June 2001. Gillian observed that Section 508 uses documentation as a “stick”; Federal agencies must purchase accessible IT or provide huge amounts of documentation. For Section 508 to be successful and effective, advocacy and consumer groups must exert pressure on the Government by filing complaints and taking legal actions.
Gillian noted that every individual, with or without a disability, has preferences regarding what they need to feel satisfied in a communication. Nothing is accessible to everyone. For example, those who need visual connections cannot work in a virtual space. Others are sensitive to vocal quality and cannot develop relationships via electronic mail. When creating collaborative communication vehicles, it is important to remember that significant trade-offs exist at different points for different people. Learning styles vary. Gillian reported that an instructor at the Rochester Institute for the Deaf has found that online courses, when structured appropriately, are more effective than regular classes for deaf students. The deaf students are encouraged to “talk” online and share their thoughts with other students; the increased interaction helps them learn. Cultural differences matter. For example, some people expect long silences between statements when taking turns to talk, while others jump in and talk “over” each other.
Maureen Findorff expressed interest in finding Federal government, as well as state and local government, examples to use in the manual. She noted an online newsletter distributed by a mayor in Georgia who encourages the readers to provide comments via email. Citizens read the newsletter, learn about community news, and interact with the mayor online. Maureen also noted N11 success stories.
Gillian asked about the manual’s intended audience and use. She noted the importance of a crystal clear message; a “muddy” message will decrease the manual’s effectiveness. Bob Knisely commented that the manual is intended to help the process of communicating information to people who are traditionally disabled. He noted that the SES is “disabled.” Most are over age 50, eligible for retirement within 5 years, and skilled at “escape and evasion.” The manual must be easy to read. The faster it is read, the lower the grade level required to ensure communication. A short Executive Summary, examples, and “next steps” are important.
A group discussion about the manual followed. The meeting attendees discussed the manual during lunch. As the meeting ended, they were asked to review the document and provide any follow-up comments. Copies of a revised draft will be distributed when available.
ADJOURNMENT
Susan Turnbull thanked everyone for attending the UA Expedition Workshop. She extended special thanks to the Marasco Newton Group for leading the discussions. It was noted that all workshop attendees will be invited to join the UA co-expedition online space, which facilitates the exchange of messages with other group members. The meeting was adjourned at 12:00 noon.
ATTENDEES
Susan Turnbull, GSA (susan.turnbull@gsa.gov)
Theresa Noll, GSA (theresa.noll@gsa.gov)
Joseph Derenge, VA (joseph.derenge@mail.va.gov)
Janina Sajka, American Federation for the Blind (janina@afb.net)
Craig Holcomb, NSA (lcholco@nsa.gov)
Sonia Guzman, Webalization Inc. (sguzman@webalization.com)
Nick Guzman, MD, GWU School of Medicine (guzmann@gwu.edu)
Genevieve Lucas, USDA (glucas@reeusda.gov)
Peter Macias, Marasco Newton (pmacias@marasconewton.com)
Dona Patrick, Caliber Associates (patricked@calib.com)
Larry Koskinen, Marasco Newton (lkoskinen@aol.com)
Bob Knisely, Marasco-Newton (knizzo@aol.com)
Owen Ambur, Fish and Wildlife Service (owen_ambur@fws.gov)
Mark Frautschi, Consultant (frautschi@bigmindmedia.com)
Maureen Findorff, Marasco Newton (mfindorf@marasconewton.com)
Shannon Kearney, Marasco Newton (skearney@marasconewton.com)
Douglas Smith, GSA (douglas.smith@gsa.gov)
Gillian Kerr, Real World Solutions (gkerr@realworldsystems.net)
WELCOME
Susan Turnbull, of the General Services Administration (GSA), opened the Universal Access (UA) Expedition Workshop at 11:15 a.m. in Room 535 of the National Science Foundation (NSF) Stafford II Building, 4121 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA. She provided an overview of the agenda and stated the purpose of the workshop: As public institutions share responsibilities for service deployment, how do we recognize, foster, and assimilate the breakthrough capabilities that matter most to the public? How do we value public encoding (e.g., open standards, open source, XML schemas) for the public realm?
Susan noted that today’s workshop is the fourth in a seven-part series. Remaining workshops are scheduled for July 16, August 14, and September 18. Minutes of the workshops, to date, are available on the Web at http://coracle.ncsa.uiuc.edu/discus/. Workshop participants are also contributing to a companion manual that is being developed this summer. The manual, “Extending Digital Dividends: Putting Public Goods and Services to Work for All,” will be a primer for non-technical executives to understand how program delivery choices affect diverse citizens in order to minimize uneven advantage and opportunity in the delivery of public goods and services.
SURPASSING GUTENBERG – A HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY IN ACCESS TO PUBLISHED INFORMATION FOR BLIND READERS AND PRINT-DISABLED PERSONS
Susan Turnbull introduced Janina Sajka, Director, Technology Governmental Relations, American Foundation for the Blind (AFB), who discussed electronic book (e-book) publishing. Janina noted that Section 508 provides an opportunity for the Federal Government to explore creative and effective means of information dissemination. The Federal Government has an advantage over private industry, which faces intellectual property management issues such as copyright law. For example, it is illegal to copy a musical recording for a friend, but it is legal to copy a Government form for a friend.
As background information, Janina explained that the AFB invented the “talking book” in the late 1920s. It is better known in publishing today as an “audio book.” Someone would sit down and read into a microphone to make 78 revolutions per minute (rpm) phonograph recordings. Later 33 rpm records, which could store more information, were invented. In the late 1960s, audiocassettes were developed. This technology allows users to “read” a book from beginning to end, but it does not facilitate study or navigation. For example, finding page 479 is time consuming.
In 1999, the Open Electronic Book Forum (OEBF) announced its 1.0 specification as a formal recommendation (standard) for electronic books. Today, efforts are under way to build better talking books using Web technologies, such as eXtensible Markup Language (XML). A committee of the United States-based National Information Standards Organization (NISO), in conjunction with the internationally known Digital Audio-based Information SYstem (DAISY) Consortium, has developed a specification for digital talking books that is written in XML and supports capture of the elements of structure in a book to facilitate navigation. The specification also defines how the textual information can be synchronized with digitally recorded human speech through Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language (SMIL), a recommendation of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
Janina noted that e-books promise to make published material accessible to blind readers at the time of publication to all readers. Time Warner was the first company in the United States to publish in the NISO-DAISY format. The company recently released, free-of-charge on the Internet, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. Janina provided a demonstration of the speech. She also provided an example of a hardware device that is available in the marketplace today, called the Victor Digital Talking Book Player. Using its telephone-like keypad, the user can navigate forward (4) and backward (6), and change “levels” (2 and 8). The device also offers playback at a wide range of fast to slow rates without distortion.
Janina expressed enthusiasm about the future of e-book technology and reiterated that it presents an opportunity for the Federal Government to assume a leadership role in shaping tomorrow’s book technologies to incorporate the needs of all readers, including blind readers. She noted efforts to encourage the convergence of standards and the development of legislation that will require the publication of accessible media.
A copy of the white paper entitled “Surpassing Gutenberg—Access to Published Information for Blind Readers,” co-authored by Janina Sajka, is available on the Web.
REFLECTIONS FROM MULTIPLE PERSPECTIVES
Community Service Viewpoint
Gillian Kerr, Ph.D., Real World Systems, noted that technology can increase or decrease accessibility; the usability criteria for devices differ. For example, teleconferencing provides geographical access but raises human factor issues. The end user, who is speaking into a void, might not feel “engaged” in the conversation. With audiotapes, reading chronological documents is easy but interacting with information is difficult. The deaf community was greatly effected when the telephone was invented. While the Internet is providing access for some, it is excluding others.
Gillian noted the importance of standards and transition plans. As new devices are introduced to the marketplace, backward compatibility and the affordability of upgrades become issues. She cited teletypewriters (TTYs) as an example. Developing accessible communications technology requires understanding how people really communicate (e.g., implicit patterns). A discussion about the potential role of non-profit organizations followed.
Federal Government Viewpoint
Janina Sajka emphasized the importance of standards convergence. She noted that e-books purchased today might be unreadable 5 years from now. The Federal Government, which is not burdened with copyright requirements, could play an important ownership role. For example, the Library of Congress could be the keeper of published e-books. A meeting attendee commented that if the Federal Government embraced a specific standard for all document dissemination, it would create a new marketplace. It was also noted that the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is currently working on an electronic records archive project.
Owen Ambur, Co-Chair, XML Working Group, said that XML could be used to improve the process by which standards are developed. He announced that the XML Working Group, which is part of the Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) Council, meets monthly. Participation is welcome. Copies of presentations are available at the XML Working Group site. The July 18 meeting agenda includes a NARA speaker and a discussion about eXtensible Talking Mouse (XTM). The August meeting might be canceled due to vacation schedules. In September, the Working Group will focus on how XML can enhance the Department of Defense (DOD) records management standard, which currently does not provide for interoperability.
A discussion about the application of XML in education followed. Owen expressed concern that the xml.edu domain has not yet been registered or developed. The academic community could provide helpful input regarding government and private industry boundaries.
Supplier Viewpoint
Mike Atlee, SpeechWorks, led a discussion about speech recognition technology. He noted that SpeechWorks International, Inc. provides speech recognition solutions that let customers direct their calls, obtain information, and complete transactions automatically, simply by speaking naturally over any phone, anytime. The United airlines automated reservation system is an example of this technology. Other customers include America Online, Amtrak, Continental Airlines, E*Trade, FedEx, Fidelity Investments Institutional Brokerage Group, MapQuest.com, and Quack.com. AT&T is a strategic partner of SpeechWorks.
Mike explained that SpeechWorks creates dialogs that can be modified. He noted a system that was originally designed to accept “yes” or “no” answers. Upon discovery that “yes, mam” created an error response, the dialog was modified. SpeechWorks is preparing to announce a new product, called “How May I Help You.” It serves as a voice portal of information (e.g., stocks, weather, horoscopes, news). Those interested in a demonstration are encouraged to dial 1-800-44ANITA (1-800-442-6482).
Mike observed that rotary-dial telephones are still in use. Natural speech recognition provides access to those without touch-tone service. The technology sits on top of an interactive voice response (IVR). It allows users to “say” or “press.” According to feedback, people find that interacting with natural speech recognition technology is an enjoyable experience. Therefore, they are inclined to use it and access more information. From a cost standpoint, the technology provides a considerable return on investment. Voice print authentication, which is stronger than finger print but weaker than retinal scan, is provided. This could be tied to a password and personal identification number (PIN) for additional security. SpeechWorks, a global company, now supports 17 different languages.
Susan Turnbull asked if natural speech recognition technology works with Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP), and Mike said that is a next step. SpeechWorks is currently working on voice XML standardization efforts. Susan also asked about navigational control elements. Mike said that a “barge in” feature allows the user to interrupt the system and provide input without listening to all of the choices. He noted that a speech acceleration feature could be designed into the system. SpeechWorks employs “speech scientists” who analyze how users interface with the system and determine ways to provide access to information in an efficient manner. A meeting attendee commented that lessons learned could be applied broadly, noting the objectives of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA).
Open Source Supplier Viewpoint
Peter Gallagher, Development Infrastructure (DevIS), discussed the advantages of open source. He commented that XML data standards combined with an open source environment is a natural coalition. The basic idea behind open source is that when programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a piece of software, the software evolves. People improve it, adapt it, and fix any problems (i.e., “bugs”) in a timely manner. This rapid evolutionary process is believed to produce better software than the traditional closed model. A variety of open source tools are available. Most, but not all, are free of charge.
Peter noted that DevIS participated in development of the disability.gov Web site, which was created to provide one-stop on-line access to resources, services, and information available throughout the Federal Government. The site will soon be renamed and restructured to provide links to various communities (e.g., local, state, non-profit). DevIS is building a system, partially based on open source, to enable these communities to combine information.
Susan Turnbull asked about the Federal Government involvement in open source, and Peter replied that times are changing. The Federal Government is now realizing that open source tools are supported by industry. In October, the first open source conference will be held at the Ronald Reagan building.
Janina Sajka observed that the Web has promoted open source. Most every Web site developer has seen something they want to emulate and retrieved a copy of the source for modification. She noted that she is in the process of organizing an open source team to build an authoring and production environment for digital talking books.
ADJOURNMENT
Susan Turnbull thanked everyone for attending the UA Expedition Workshop. She announced that additional workshops are scheduled for July 17, August 14, and September 18. All workshop attendees will be invited to join the UA co-expedition online space, which facilitates the exchange of messages with other group members. The meeting was adjourned at 2:00 p.m.
LESSONS LEARNED
Following the meeting, several participants noted ways to improve the workshop format as it continues to grow and includes remote presenters:
1) facilitator to support chair
2) microphone for amplification to accommodate participants and note-taker
3) microphone will also establish single speaker channel protocol needed by remote participants, visually impaired participants and note-taker
4) speakers identify themselves during discussion to accommodate remote participants, visually impaired participants and note-taker
ATTENDEES
Susan Turnbull
Co-Chair, UA Expedition Workshop series and
Senior Program Advisor
Next Generation Strategies Team
Office of Information Technology
Office of Governmentwide Policy
General Services Administration
George Brett
Co-Chair, UA Expedition Workshop series and
Senior Project Coordinator
National Laboratory for Applied Network Research
National Center for Supercomputing Applications
Alliance Center for Collaboration, Education, Science and Software
Gillian Kerr, Real World Solutions (gkerr@goodenough.com)
Carolyn Kinney, (carriek@erols.com)
Mike Atlee, Speech Works International (mike.atlee@speechworks.com)
Kerry Romesberg, GSA (kerry.romesberg@gsa.gov)
Nora Rice, GSA (nora.rice@gsa.gov)
Peter Gallagher, Develop Information Structure (pgallagher@devis.com)
Sudesh Kalra, Fairfax County (skalra@co.fairfax.va.us)
Owen Ambur, Fish and Wildlife Service (owen_ambur@fws.gov)
Mark Frautschi, Consultant (frautschi@bigmindmedia.com)
Steve Keplinger, Caliber Associates (keplinge@calib.com)
Beth Tang, Caliber Associates (bethtang@yahoo.com)
Larry Koskinen, Marasco-Newton (lkoskinen@aol.com)
Bob Knisely, Marasco-Newton (knizzo@aol.com)
Sonia Guzman, Webalization Inc. (sguzman@webalization.com)
Nick Guzman, MD, GWU School of Medicine (guzmann@gwu.edu)
John Clark, GSA (john.clark@gsa.gov)
Roderick French, Navy (french.roderick@hq.navy.mil)
Karl Hebenstreit, GSA (karl.hebenstreit@gsa.gov)
Janina Sajka, American Foundation for the Blind (janina@afb.net)
Theresa Noll, GSA (theresa.noll@gsa.gov)
Susan Turnbull, GSA (susan.turnbull@gsa.gov)
George Brett, NCSA (ghb@ncsa.uiuc.edu)
WELCOME
Susan Turnbull, of the General Services Administration (GSA), opened the Universal Access (UA) Expedition Workshop at 11:15 a.m. in Room 545 of the National Science Foundation (NSF) Stafford II Building, 4121 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA. She provided an overview of the agenda and stated the exploratory purpose of the workshop: As seniors and teens explore cyberspace together, what is the potential and reality for current and future technology designs to augment the linguistic and cultural aspects of their shared experiences?
Susan noted that today’s workshop is the third in a seven-part series that concludes in September 2001. Planned outcomes are a knowledge repository that complements the “Extending Digital Dividend” initiatives of several Federal science and service workgroups. In addition, the workshops will lead to a non-technical manual designed to help Federal program managers better understand the design tradeoffs associated with electronic service delivery. Topics to be included in the manual will be discussed at the next UA expedition workshop, scheduled for June 19, 2001.
THE MAINE STORY - CYBERSENIORS.ORG and 4-H CYBERSENIORS/CYBERTEENS
Susan Turnbull introduced Elizabeth Isele, Founder and President, CyberSeniors.org, a non-profit organization dedicated to helping senior citizens learn how to use computers and access the wealth of information available on the Internet. Elizabeth explained that the seniors are taught through Computer Learning Centers with a curriculum created specifically to meet their physical needs and learning capabilities. The workshops are “hands-on,” so every senior learns at a computer. Approximately 3500 seniors have received this "hands-on" training. Each workshop has a maximum of 10 students and the student/teacher ratio is 2:1 or 3:1. CyberSeniors.org depends on a large number of volunteers to support its educational programs. Volunteers of all ages help teach in the Computer Learning Centers. New partnerships underway now include the USDA sponsored 4-H Youth Technology Team in Virginia, the Arlington County Cooperative Extension Service, Virginia Tech University, and the National Retired Teachers Association. In Maine, where the CyberSeniors.org began, high school seniors are the teaching assistants. In some states, this partnership allows students to complete community involvement credits necessary for graduation with hours spent as volunteer teaching assistants. A discussion about the benefits of having students work with senior citizens followed. Elizabeth noted that the intergenerational aspect of the program has been a great success. Students frequently continue to participation in the program after completing community involvement credits. The program shifts the education paradigm and provides an extraordinary collaborative learning experience.
Elizabeth said that the seniors are most interested in how to access health information on the Internet. CyberSeniors.org is starting a research program to collect information about seniors before, during, and after cyber-health training. For example, does the training change their health behaviors? Likewise, does the experience of working with seniors encourage the high school students (i.e., volunteers) to change their health behaviors? What are they learning from the seniors about aging? A number of researchers and research organizations want to participate. Longitudinal data is anticipated for as many as 50,000 people based on the current growth rate of the program.
Elizabeth noted that the CyberSeniors program began in Portland, Maine; it is currently offered in various communities of Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, and New Hampshire and an expanded program with additional partners through 4-H Youth Technology Leadership Teams is getting underway in Arlington County, Virginia. Elizabeth is assisting the replication and program expansion efforts in Arlington County and introduced Joyce Bissonette, who was recently selected to coordinate the 4-H CyberSeniors/CyberTeens in Arlington County.
THE ARLINGTON COUNTY STORY - 4-H CYBERSENIORS/CYBERTEENS
Joyce Bissonette provided an update on the Arlington County 4-H CyberSeniors/ CyberTeens program. She said that sessions to train the volunteers began last month. A second training session is under way this week. Actual workshops are scheduled to begin at four sites in June 2001. Arlington County chosen for its leadership and the challenge of learning how to expand the model in a culturally and linguistically diverse setting such as Arlington County. to address A program flyer distributed by Tom Tate, National Program Leader, Information Technology for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service in Washington , also highlights this model program from the USDA 4-H perspective. The following paragraphs are from the flyer:
"This intergenerational coalition is formed and dedicated to the betterment of seniors health and well-being. The USDA sponsored 4-H Youth Technology Team in Virginia, the Arlington County Cooperative Extension Service, Virginia Tech University, CyberSeniors.org in Maine, and the National Retired Teachers Association(NRTA) are the partners.
Through the purposeful use of technology, this partnership will bridge the digital and generational divides. The 4-H youth will learn teaching skills. Technology savvy 4-H Teens will be teaching Seniors Internet skills. The NRTA teachers will learn technology skills, and Seniors will benefit from everyone's experience.
A comprehensive community asset mapping and needs assessment drove a rapid community response.
The whole community is responding: faith based institutions; private firms; non-profit organizations; AARP; USDA; libraries; schools; parks and recreation and the National Retired Teachers Association.
The program is driven by a successfully tested curriculum and an evaluation process is being built in to quantify the validity of the program. This aggressive initiative is taking community learning to a new level, harnessing the life long learning needs of adults with the need for youth learning beyond the classroom.
The Arlington County E-Government Master Plan 2001 published in March, 2001 is already gaining recognition as a model for other settings. The 4-H CyberSeniors/CyberTeens program is an early example of the foresight and leadership being demonstrated in this County.
Susan Turnbull expressed interest in the community-based effort, noting that before going into private practice in 1983, she worked as a speech pathologist in the Arlington County Public School System. At that time, she partnered with an engineer to build a computer system that enabled a young student to communicate. A commercial computer (Timex Sinclair) was enhanced for operation by head movement and included speech synthesis and a battery pack. The total cost, including the computer was $300. This highly effective partnership among a child user, service provider, and IT developer inspired her early efforts in 1984 to develop a cooperative approach and coalition among the Federal government, local universities, schools, and the IT industry to leverage the widest benefits possible as computer and information technologies advanced. She had also witnessed the creativity and innovation that could be achieved when developers and users worked together by attending a national innovation conference sponsored by Johns Hopkins University in 1983. The conference focused on people with disabilities and technology. Today's workshop theme also reminded Susan of important lessons she learned in high school, working with seniors as a Red Cross volunteer and also in graduate school when she was director of the International Student Center, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison.
Susan also referenced a book written by Dr. Jennifer Preece, Professor and Chair, Information Systems Department, University of Maryland at Baltimore County, entitled “Online Communities.” Dr. Preece attended last month’s UA Expedition Workshop and discussed her work with small, multi-disciplinary teams of students who develop community-based projects. These students could be a resource for the CyberSeniors/CyberTeens program. Susan noted that Jenny met with Elizabeth before the workshop got underway this morning, because a scheduling conflict precluded her from participating in today's workshop.
Guadalupe Pacheco, Office of Minority Health, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), applauded the work of 4-H CyberSeniors/CyberTeens. He noted parallels to the work his office is trying to accomplish. For example, working with seniors could increase health awareness among minority students. Mr. Pacheco's office is responsible for advising the Secretary of HHS on developing programs and services that could improve the health status of minority populations.
Beth McKinnon, of the Social Security Administration (SSA), said that SSA is offering online services via its Social Security Online and FirstGov for Seniors . She also discussed a “benefits checkup” tool, developed by the National Council on the Aging, which will be available online soon. (Update from Beth: this resource became available on May 23, 2001)
Lori Perine, President and CEO of Interpretech, LLC, introduced us to the objectives of her new consulting firm. The firm is working to foster better linkages between knowledge production (education and R&D) and technology commercialization, so that technology opportunities are more successfully leveraged for economic and social benefit. Lori also noted that she is the former Deputy Associate Director for Technology, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
Helena Coleman, GSA, said that she works in the Information Technology (IT) Professional Development Division, which develops technical training programs for senior executives in the Federal Government.
Tom Tate, USDA , is National Program Leader, Information Technology for the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service in Washington, DC. Tate has thity-two years of experience in designing and developing information technology solutions that address the health, education, and economic development needs of small towns and rural areas. Tom is also the chair of Americans Communicating Electronically( ACE), a 7000 member organization committed to expanding access to the benefits of the Global Information Infrastructure. ACE is the government-wide, citizen-access, andoutreach initiative co-sponsored by USDA's Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) and the Small Business Administration (SBA). CSREES's Economic and Community Systems (ECS) division directs information technology projects that are making thousands of screens of federal, state and local government information accessible to millions of citizen customers. ACE members from all 14 Federal departments. and agencies, state and local governments, nonprofit organizations, community groups, schools, churches and the private sector firms are contributing their content and labor to improve citizen access to information and educational resources electronically.
THE OFFICE OF MINORITY HEALTH STORY: ACHIEVING CULTURAL COMPETENCY
Guadalupe Pacheco provided a briefing about the HHS Office of Minority Health (OMH) and its activities associated with achieving cultural competency. He noted the OMH mission: to improve the health of racial and ethnic populations through the development of health policies and programs that help to eliminate health disparities and gaps. Populations served by OMH include African Americans, American Indians, Alaska Natives, Asian Americans, Pacific Islanders, and Hispanics. OMH targets 7 health conditions (heart disease and stroke; cancer; substance abuse; diabetes; homicide, suicide, and unintentional injuries; infant mortality; and HIV/AIDS) and 4 crosscutting areas (access to health care, improved data collection/analysis, health professions development, and cultural competence).
Guadalupe explained that cultural competency means the ability of health care practitioners to recognize the cultural beliefs and health practices of diverse populations and to use that knowledge (evidence) to prescribe the best possible treatment or intervention. The legislative framework includes the Disadvantaged Minority Health Improvement Act of 1990, the Health Professions Education Partnership Act of 1998, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Minority demographics are changing. Guadalupe noted that minorities comprised 28 percent of the population in 1997. They are expected to comprise 48 percent of the population by 2050. According to 1990 Census data, approximately 23 million people in the United States do not speak English. Other reports indicate that minorities continue to have poor health, disparities have worsened, and they remain chronically underserved by the health care system. A culturally competent workforce is needed to better serve the culturally and linguistically diverse patient population. Health care delivery programs that reflect the health beliefs and values of racially diverse communities must be designed to address the continuing health disparities.
OMH established the Center for Linguistic and Cultural Competence in Health Care in response to a mandate by Congress to develop projects geared at eliminating language barriers for Limited English proficient individuals for the purpose of increasing their access to health care. The Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services (CLAS) Standards project addresses the current patchwork of definitions, guidelines, and overlap on what constitutes cultural competence service delivery; provides a roadmap for providing culturally competent services; and serves as guiding principles for delivery of quality health care to diverse populations. Guadalupe discussed the status of the CLAS standards. They were first developed in May 1999. They were revised and republished in December 2000. The 14 nationally recommended standards address three themes: culturally competent care, language access, and organizational supports for cultural competence.
In closing, Guadalupe noted that OMH challenges include: assuring the implementation of CLAS standards, continuing to build the evidence base for benefits that accrue from CLAS, developing a research agenda for CLAS, based on identification of on-going research and remaining gaps.
THE MELBOURNE, FL STORY: CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC ASPECTS OF WEB SITE USABILITY
Dr. Shirley “Annie” Becker, Professor of Computer Science, Florida Institute of Technology, Melbourne, FL, and two graduate students joined the meeting via teleconference. Annie directs the E-usability, Education, and E-research (E3) Center, which conducts research in Web usability, internationalization and multicultural diversity, data quality, Web testing, and e-commerce rapid application development.
Dr. Becker provided an overview of the Web Usability Assessment Model, which resulted from the E3 Center’s initial Web usability assessment work. The model is based on 11 factors: design standards, personalization, design layout, navigation, design consistency, customer service, reliability, security, accessibility, information content, and performance. Some or all of these elements are considered during Web site assessments.
Dr. Becker observed that English is a secondary language for a large part of the United States population. Multicultural barriers to Web use include: images and icons, text layout, syntax, character set, semantics, reading and comprehension, use of color, font size and style, search mechanisms, labels, and design layout. Dr. Becker was joined by three of her multilingual students who provided several Web site examples to illustrate perceived usability issues. Joining Dr. Becker in the presentation were Frances Crespo, Anthony Berkemeyer and Giridharan, Vijayaraghavan. It was noted that Web usability plays a crucial role in the success of any site. Success means universal access regardless of one’s cultural background. Dr. Becker said that multicultural Web usability issues range from little design flaws to virtually inaccessible Web sites. Multicultural users need to be involved in usability studies to make improvements. Improvements do not have to be costly redesigns. The E3 Center is conducting multicultural usability studies in its lab. Dr. Becker's presentation is available.
THE PALO ALTO STORY
Chuck Merritt, Spanish Teacher, Palo Alto High School (PAHS), Palo Alto, CA, joined the meeting via teleconference. He explained that he directs a state-funded program that offers technology training for PAHS staff members. He also leads a digital storytelling program called “Voices” that promotes media literacy at the student level. Chuck noted that useful information about storytelling is available.
On the weekends, Chuck volunteers at the Digital Clubhouse Network, a non-profit organization that is dedicated to “using the power of networked multimedia to build better communities.”
Specifically, he helps middle- and high-school students develop digital stories that are published on CD-ROM. Many of these efforts involve collaboration with members of the community. For example, projects have required the students to work with breast cancer survivors, African American community leaders, and members of the American Cancer Society.
A discussion about building digital archives followed. Elizabeth Isele noted that CyberSeniors.org. is developing a database based on thematic content, such as World War II. Also, the URL for the prototype for their Digital Archive is currently at their webmaster's site. Tom Tate said that ACE is working with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to gather stories from veterans in Missouri, Iowa, and Illinois VA hospitals. Elizabeth noted that the VA is interested in using the CyberSeniors program to provide veterans with technology training.
THE FEDERAL PICTURE ON LIMITED ENGLISH PROFICIENCY
Von Harrison, GSA what Federal agencies are doing to serve a diverse population. She presented the findings from an independent study paper she developed as she completed her recent Master’s degree from Syracuse University. The title of her paper is Narrowing the Digital Divide: Providing Federal Services to a Diverse Population.
Von said there is no consensus on a digital divide definition. However, research validates the existence of wide disparities among certain groups. The 2000 Census data reveals exploding diversity in the U.S. population. This includes significant language barriers among those with limited English proficiency (LEP). Without assistance, LEP persons have a high potential for being left behind, particularly in accessing Government benefits, services, and information. The Civil Rights Act of 1964, Supreme Court decisions, and policy have provided a solid foundation for supporting assistance for LEP persons on the basis of non-discrimination based on national origin. President Clinton issued Executive Order 13166 requiring agencies to have a policy regarding LEP.
Von provided a general overview of Federal agency LEP plans and practices. She said that she reviewed approximately 16 plans and met with about 20 agencies. She found that many agencies have been addressing the needs of LEP persons for some time prior to the Executive Order (EO). For others, the EO initiated agency efforts. Agencies use a variety of methods and tools (e.g., computerized translations, permanent staff interpreters, signage, video, recorded messages, and other tools) to provide translation for LEP persons. The methods depend on the agency’s mission, frequency, predominant type of contact with LEP persons (e.g., direct or through a recipient of Federal funds), and diversity of language translations required. Several agencies have developed model LEP programs and one has implemented national standards.
Von reviewed the questions and results gathered from her survey of Federal agencies. She observed that almost half of the agencies use computerized translations and half hire permanent staff interpreters. The overwhelming majority use signage, video, recorded messages, and other tools that do not include human interpreters or machine translation. More than half of the agencies provide translations of vital documents in one foreign language on their Web sites.
Von noted that the Federal Government must serve all communities. To narrow existing gaps, technology and technology workers need to improve translation technologies, creatively combine technology and human interpretation, use the Internet to provide translation, ensure better collaboration, and measure customer satisfaction. Von noted the importance of leveraging resources, such as the experience of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). Tom Tate asked about using existing agency translation service contracts. Von suggested reviewing existing GSA Schedule contracts online find translation services.
In closing, Von noted that a current bill in Congress could rescind EO 13166 and eliminate funds used to provide language assistance. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not require the provision of services. Rather, it states that one must not discriminate. In a recent decision, the Supreme Court said there is no basis for connecting discrimination based on national origin with not providing something in a person’s native language; it decouples the two. This is a significant ruling.
ADJOURNMENT
Susan Turnbull thanked everyone for attending the UA Expedition Workshop. She noted that all workshop attendees would be invited to join UA co-expedition online space, which facilitates the exchange of messages with other group members. The handouts from the workshop prepared by Guadalupe, Annie and Von will be posted at the Discus on-line conferencing site under the topic heading: May 15 Workshop on Cultural and Linguistic Issues. The URL is http://coracle.ncsa.uiuc.edu/discus/. The meeting was adjourned at 2:25 p.m.
Susan Turnbull
Co-Chair, UA Expedition Workshop series and
Senior Program Advisor
Next Generation Strategies Team
Office of Information Technology
Office of Governmentwide Policy.
George Brett
Co-Chair, UA Expedition Workshop series and
Senior Project Coordinator
National Laboratory for Applied Network Research
National Center for Supercomputing Applications
Alliance Center for Collaboration, Education, Science and Software
ATTENDEES
Annie Becker, Florida Institute of Technology (becker@cs.fit.edu)
Dr. Becker's students who participated in the workshop from the Florida Institute of Technology:
Frances Crespo
Anthony Berkemeyer
Giridharan, Vijayaraghavan
Joyce Bissonette, Arlington County 4-H CyberSeniors/CyberTeens (justme@bigplanet.com)
Helena Coleman, GSA (helena.coleman@gsa.gov)
Elizabeth Isele, CyberSeniors.org (cybersrs@maine.rr.com)
Chuck Merritt, Palo Alto High School (cmerritt@pausd.palo-alto.ca.us)
Guadalupe Pacheco, HHS (gpacheco@osophs.dhhs.gov)
Lori Perine, Interpretech (lperine@interpretech.com)
Jennifer Preece, University of Maryland at Baltimore County (preece@umbc.edu)
Susan Turnbull, GSA (susan.turnbull@gsa.gov)
Von Harrison, GSA (von.harrison@gsa.gov)
Beth McKinnon, SSA (beth.a.mckinnon@ssa.gov)
Tom Tate, ACE (tateace@aol.com or ttate@reeusda.gov)
Peter Laws, Virginia Tech, lawsp@vt.edu
WELCOME
Susan Turnbull, General Services Administration (GSA), opened the Universal Access (UA) Expedition Workshop at 11:10 a.m. She welcomed the attendees to the Alliance Center on Collaboration, Education, Science, and Software (ACCESS). As background information, she noted that the goal of the Alliance Center is to “bring the technological advances of the National Computational Science Alliance to all sectors of society in order to strengthen the competitiveness of business, enrich the educational environment, and improve the overall quality of life in our nation.” It is a “frontier cyber-society outpost” used principally by university researchers.
Susan provided an overview of the workshop agenda. She noted the theme: “Learning Together How to Use Online Conferencing Tools.” After guest introductions, the attendees will take a guided tour of the no-cost conferencing tool being used to record highlights of the workshop series. George Brett, Senior Project Coordinator, National Laboratory for Applied Network Research, and Jennifer Preece, Professor and Chair, Information Systems Department, University of Maryland at Baltimore County, will share online conferencing insights. The second hour will be a working lunch for guest contributors to meet in smaller groups and discuss the information presented in the first hour. During the third hour, the guest contributors will have the opportunity to share their own experiences, tools, and interests, and provide feedback on the expedition workshop.
Notebooks containing UA background information, resources, and related documentation were circulated for review. Susan noted plans to make the contents of these notebooks available online.
GUEST CONTRIBUTOR INTRODUCTIONS
· Susan Turnbull, Next Generation Strategies Team, GSA - Ms. Turnbull was the founding director of the Center for Information Technology (IT) Accommodation. One of Ms. Turnbull's planned outcomes for the workshop series will be a knowledge repository and manual that complements the "Extending Digital Dividends" initiatives of several Federal science and service working groups where she serves as a member. www.itpolicy.gsa.gov
· Cynthia Baur, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) – Ms. Baur's office works to strengthen the disease prevention and health promotion priorities of HHS. It also advises the Secretary on developing programs and services that could improve the exchange of health information. http://odphp.osophs.dhhs.gov/
· Karl Hebenstreit, GSA - Previously a member of GSA's Center for IT Accommodation, Mr. Hebenstreit now works in the Office of "First.Gov," which is a citizen's portal to Government resources. Last year he wrote a paper that identified a communications framework based on accessible collaborative learning environments. www.firstgov.gov
· Bob Maslyn, Next Generation Strategies Team, GSA. The Next Generation Strategies Team is an internal "think tank" in the Office of Governmentwide Policy. Mr. Maslyn is also working to create an online training community as a member of the Federal E-gov fellows program of the Center for Excellence in Government. www.itpolicy.gsa.gov
· Sara Melnick, Director of Projects and Programs, National Association of Partners in Education (NAPE) – NAPE is a national membership organization devoted solely to providing leadership in the field of education partnership development. It works to increase the number, quality, and scope of effective partnerships; increase the resources to support effective partnerships; increase awareness about the importance of partnerships for promoting youth success; and promote the importance of effective partnerships to policymakers. www.napehq.org
· John Stokes, Director of Business Development, Caucus Systems – Caucus helps distributed organizations work effectively via the Internet at any time, from any place by creating virtual environments for collaboration and communication. www.caucus.com
· Beth Tang, Web Designer, Caliber Associates - Caliber Associates provides high-quality applied research, evaluation, information, and human resources management consulting services to the public, private, and non-profit sectors, including HHS. www.calib.com
· Donna Patrick, System Designer, Caliber Associates – Ms. Patrick works with Caliber Associates on Section 508 and Web site accessibility. www.calib.com
· Nora Rice, Office of Emerging IT Policies, GSA – Ms. Rice aggregates and analyzes Federal IT policies across Government, with a focus on performance and process improvement. www.itpolicy.gsa.gov
· Michael Moore, Office of Policy and Planning, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) – Michael is part of the VA Connecting the Vet Project which is exploring public-private partnerships to address digital divide issues pertaining to veterans.www.va.gov
· Portia Clark, Nauck Community Technology Center, located in the Macedonia Baptist Church, Arlington County, VA – Ms. Clark is the Director of one of the three pilot sites for the 4H Cyber Seniors/Cyber Teens Program that is getting underway in Arlington County, modeled after statewide success in Maine. The Maine and Arlington County projects are being expanded to include a CyberHealth focus. In partnership with the National Library of Medicine and Johns Hopkins University, these 4H programs will explore the efficacy of appropriate health information to improve senior health status and reduce health costs.
ONLINE CONFERENCING TOUR
George Brett, Senior Project Coordinator at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA), National Laboratory for Applied Network Research (NLANR), and Jennifer Pleece, Professor, University of Maryland at Baltimore County (UMBC), shared online conferencing insights.
George Brett
Mr. Brett provided an overview of his current work, which builds on two decades of study. He serves as the Senior Project Coordinator for the Distributed Applications Support Team. He also developed and manages the NLANR's Advanced Applications Clearinghouse, which focuses on the variety of applications used by higher education institutions over high performance networks. The NLANR has a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation (NSF).
Mr. Brett presented a “mind map,” often used for story telling, to describe the evolution of media. He discussed the Knowledge Management Clearinghouse (i.e., the "Klearinghouse") concept, which can serve as a coordinating entity for the identification and use of tools for knowledge management in real time, any time, and over time. He emphasized the importance of creating an inventory of collaboration tools and associated requirements.
One meeting attendee raised economic issues, noting that community collaboration efforts could be limited by resources. Mr. Brett emphasized the importance of “taking the first step” and “expanding upon it.” He introduced several no-cost online conferencing tool that he later demonstrated.Examples of bringing communities of people in contact with technology (e.g., telemedicine, rural Internet access) were provided and discussed.
Jennifer Preece
Ms. Preece began with background information and noted past assignments involving online collaboration tools. She announced that she currently teaches a graduate-level course about online communities at UMBC. The class objective is to get students working collaboratively. Assignments involve setting up online communities to support local communities. Project teams typically consist of 3 to 5 students, with at least one student majoring in Computer Science or Information Systems, a student majoring in Sociology, and a student majoring in Human Interaction. Their perspectives differ. For example, Sociology students define a community in terms of relationships and Computer Science students define it in terms of software.
Ms. Pleece highlighted usability and sociability as areas of interest. She emphasized that communities are “developed,” and software is “designed.” Software strongly influences how people communicate in a community. For example, the registration process associated with joining a bulletin board community involves sociability (e.g., who gets in) and usability (e.g., what information to request) decisions. A discussion about how to encourage people to communicate and participate in a community followed. Ms. Pleece noted the importance of defining the purpose of the community and maintaining it, understanding the kinds of people who join the community, and establishing social policies.
Bob Maslyn raised candor as an issue. He noted that hierarchical structures make it difficult for Government employees to talk openly with each other about their work. Ms. Pleece observed that this issue goes beyond Government. She noted technical and social concerns. A discussion about email storage followed. It was noted that public keys and digital signatures could be used to limit the life of a message. To encourage candor, Ms. Pleece made several suggestions: provide private space for one-on-one communications and public space for widely-shareable information, keep groups relatively small, plan online meetings about specific topics, and have someone facilitate (i.e., encourage) conversations.
TOOL DEMONSTRATION AND DISCUSSION
George Brett demonstrated Yahoo! Groups, a no-cost conferencing tool and e-mail group service currently used to record highlights of the UA Expedition Workshop series. Those who attend the UA Expedition Workshops are invited to join the group. By joining Co-expedition, it will be possible to exchange messages with other group members. Yahoo! Groups makes it easy to store photos and files, coordinate events, and more.
Mr. Brett continued with a demonstration of the Coracle Forum, an experimental space which employs Discus. Discus is a free WWW discussion board software package that can be installed on a unix, Windows 95/98, or Windows NT web server. More than 45,000 internet sites are using Discus.
Last, Mr. Brett and John Stokes demonstrated Caucus Systems. Caucus is commercially available and usage includes large organizations representing all sectors. Caucus was used recently for the Online Social Networks 2001 conference that was conducted virtually over a period of two weeks. Members of the Expedition group that participated are George Brett, Bob Maslyn, and Susan Turnbull.
EXCHANGE OF INSIGHTS AND PERSPECTIVES
The meeting attendees commented on the conference tools. It was noted that Caucus is easy to use and customize, and Discus is easy to install. A decision was made to add all UA Expedition Workshop attendees to the Coracle Forum.
George Brett observed that getting people to use collaborative space is a cultural issue. People typically use e-mail or telephone to communicate. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) use the media broadcast model. They “push” information, but they do not focus on the “return” of information, which requires parity in the tool sets available to both sending and receiving parties to accommodate the two-way creation of information.
Jennifer Preece recommended reading iMP magazine, the “Magazine on Information Impacts. She also noted an article she authored for iMP relevant to our discussion titled: What Happens After You Get Online? Usability and Sociability.
Ms. Preece has also authored a recent book on this subject: Online Communities: Designing Usability and Supporting Sociability, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., June 2000.
Additional resource contributions:
Nora Rice suggested the Knowledge Management working group of the CIO Council
Beth Tang suggested Public Technology Inc., a collaborative environment and workspace,
presentations from recent knowledge managment conference and a personal information processor tool
Karl Hebenstreit suggested education/storytelling tools and bookmarked them in the Co-expedition space during the workshop.
ADJOURNMENT
Susan Turnbull thanked everyone for attending the second UA Expedition Workshop. She extended special thanks to George Brett and Jenny Preece for sharing their knowledge and insights with the group. She invited participants to continue the discussion in the Co-expedition on-line space. Minutes will be distributed to the 1) UA-Expedition listserv 2) UAWG listserv and the 3) Collaborative Expedition space in Yahoo and 4) the Coracle Forum. The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m.
ATTENDEES
Cynthia Baur, HHS (cbaur@osophs.dhhs.gov)
George Brett, NLANR (ghb@dast.nlanr.net)
Portia Clark, CTC (portiaclark@hotmail.com)
Karl Hebenstreit, GSA (karl.hebenstreit@gsa.gov)
Bob Maslyn, GSA (bob.maslyn@gsa.gov)
Sara Melnick, National Association of Partners in Education (smelnick@napehq.org)
Michael Moore, VA (michael.moore@mail.va.gov)
Donna Patrick, Caliber Associates (patrickd@calib.com)
Jennifer Pleece, UMBC (preece@umbc.edu)
Nora Rice, GSA (nora.rice@gsa.gov)
John Stokes, Caucus Systems (john.stokes@caucus.com)
Beth Tang, Caliber Associates (bethtang@yahoo.com)
Susan Turnbull, GSA (susan.turnbull@gsa.gov)
WELCOME
Susan Turnbull, General Services Administration (GSA), opened the first Universal Access (UA) Expedition Workshop at 11:00 a.m. She explained that seven three-hour workshops will be held between March 2001 and September 2001. The workshops will replace the face-to-face monthly meetings of the Universal Access Working Group (UAWG). Summaries will be posted to the Web-based UA Collaboration and Learning Space.
Ms. Turnbull provided an overview of the workshop format. For the first hour, UA members are invited to teleconference in and listen to guest introductions followed by an overview of content creation and resource exchange tools, led by George Brett, Senior Project Coordinator, National Laboratory for Applied Network Research. The second hour will be a working lunch for guest contributors to begin using the tools introduced in the first hour. During the third hour, the guest contributors will share what they have learned from one another that is valuable to their own work and to the new focus of the UAWG. Guests will also reflect on the potential and reality of collaboration and enabling technologies to address digital disparities in their own settings.
GUEST INTRODUCTIONS
· Dr. William Smith, Director of Organizing for Development an International Institute (ODII) - ODII takes a “whole systems” approach to organization. It deals equally with the internal and external environment and with social, political and technical systems. To accomplish this, ODII works simultaneously with multiple levels of organization. ODII helps individuals, organizations and communities to discover and use all sources of power available to help them achieve their purposes. Currently, Dr. Smith is working on a book that generalizes the learning from successful application of this approach in many settings.
· John Scott, President of the Center for Public Service Communications (CPSC) – CPSC is a consulting company focusing on public sector applications. Two areas of focus include: Disaster Management and Humanitarian Assistance (largely international, especially under-served populations and access to information, particularly in the early warning phases of disasters, such as preparedness and prevention) and Health Information Technology (Mr. Scott serves as chair of the congressional ad hoc steering committee on telehealth, working with Federal agencies such as the National Library of Medicine, and focusing on under-served populations).
· Karl Hebenstreit, GSA – Previously a member of GSA’s Center for Information Technology (IT) Accommodation, Mr. Hebenstreit now works in the Office of “First.Gov,” which is a citizen’s portal to Government resources. Last year he wrote a paper that identified a communications framework based on accessible collaborative learning environments.
· Theresa Noll, GSA – Ms. Noll facilitates the activities of the UAWG. Her responsibilities include outreach, teleconferencing, and listserv capabilities. She is currently serving on an interagency committee tasked to develop Governmentwide teleworking policies.
· Craig Holcomb, Technical Director, CIO Office of ITMRA Governance, National Security Agency (NSA) – Mr. Holcomb also serves as the Section 508 Coordinator for NSA.
· Susan Turnbull, Next Generation Strategies Team, GSA - Ms. Turnbull was the founding director of the Center for IT Accommodation. One of Ms. Turnbull's planned outcomes for the workshop series will be a knowledge repository and resource guide that complements the "Extending Digital Dividend" initiatives of several federal science and service working groups where she serves as a member.
· Guadalupe Pacheco, Office of Minority Health, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) – Mr. Pacheco’s office is responsible for advising the Secretary of HHS on developing programs and services that could improve the health status of minority populations.
· Martha Matzke, Technical Writer and Editor, National Coordination Office (NCO) for Information Technology Research and Development (IT R&D) – The NCO coordinates planning, budget, and assessment activities for the Federal IT R&D participating agencies. The 11 participating Federal agencies comprising the Interagency Working Group (IWG) on IT R&D pioneer research in future generations of information technologies. The NCO reports to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the National Science and Technology Council.
· Bob Maslyn, GSA – Next Generation Strategies Team, GSA. The Next Generation Strategies Team is an internal “think tank” in the Office of Governmentwide Policy. Mr. Maslyn is also working to create an online training community as a member of the Federal E-gov fellows program of the Center for Excellence in Government.
· Tom Tate, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) – As Chair of Americans Communicating Electronically (ACE), Mr. Tate is a leader in building communities to minimize the “digital divide.” The vision of ACE is for all citizens to become technologically literate in the 21st century.
OVERVIEW OF TOOLS
Susan Turnbull introduced George Brett, Senior Project Coordinator at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA), National Laboratory for Applied Network Research(NLANR). He developed and manages NLANR's Advanced Applications Clearinghouse, which focuses on the variety of applications used by higher education institutions over high performance networks. He led a discussion about working and collaborating online. [NOTE: Mr. Brett’s briefing slides are available at Recent Talks.]
Mr. Brett provided background information about himself. He noted past projects, including:
· Global Schoolhouse – an online collaboration for grades K-12 (email, CU SeeMe, gopher, web).
· Center for Networked Information Discovery and Retrieval (CNIDR) - stewardship of public domain tools (archie, gopher, WAIS, world wide web); resource discovery (WAIS, Z39.50, Whois++); and standards.
· Distributed Information Processing Protocol – simplify addition and management of online information.
· Community Lifelong Learning IntraNet Collaboratory (CLIC) – community, context, content.
·
· Firewatch - knowledge creation, oral history, corporate memory.
Mr. Brett explained that each of these projects involved information gathering and collaborative tools. He also discussed earlier "state-of-the art" methods to model and achieve a generalizable and functioning information architecture using an "infospace" concept or a "black box" concept. Neither approach has been realized in a manner that addresses the complex social and technical issues involved.
Mr. Brett gave an overview of his current work at the National Laboratory for Applied Network Research (NLANR) which builds on two decades of study. NLANR has a cooperative agreement with the National Science Foundation (NSF). It consists of three teams (with the following responsibilities):
· Measurement and Operations Analysis Team (network performance characterization)
· National Center for Network Engineering (end-to-end engineering support)
· Distributed Applications Support Team (user applications support/optimization, the Advanced Applications Database/Clearinghouse)
Mr. Brett is Senior Project Coordinator for the Distributed Applications Support Team. He provided an overview of the Advanced Applications Database, which is the core of the NLANR Clearinghouse.
It is an inventory of projects, resources, applications, and people using high performance networks. Currently, the database represents 2075 projects, 899 contacts, 1093 resources, 13 discipline categories, over 300 institutions or organizations, and 16 countries. The database is based on a grid concept with the following categories:
· Distributed Supercomputing
· High Throughput
· On demand
· Data intensive
· Collaborative
Mr. Brett noted examples and characteristics of each category. He suggested adding a “Tetherless” or “Wireless” category to the grid.
Mr. Brett continued with an overview of the Knowledge Management Clearinghouse (i.e., the “Klearinghouse”) concept, as the next logical step. He said that it can serve as a coordinating entity for the identification and use of tools for knowledge management in real time, any time, and over time. It will focus on three areas of information technologies:
· People to Data/Content (kBase) – this is the knowledge base; it contains information about collections (e.g., data, meta-data, and others).
· People to People (kSpace) – this is the space that knowledge grows and evolves from; it contains information about computer-mediated communications tools/applications (e.g., video conferencing, web conferences, electronic mail).
· People to Tools for the Work (kTools) – these are the applications and technology tools used to perform the research and educational activities; it contains information about resources used by specific disciplines (e.g., Biologist Workbench, TeleMedicine, Sloan Digital Sky Survey).
Mr. Brett presented a visual map as well as a process map of the Klearinghouse concept. (See briefing slides for details). He noted the importance of learning from the past; he cautioned against “throwing earlier knowledge bases away” and giving up “digital rights.”
John Scott noted a project funded by the National Library of Medicine with the Pan American Health Organization to develop a disaster health information network for Honduras and Nicaragua. He said that the project team is trying to identify non-traditional information providers and “raise the validity” by making the network accessible. A discussion about the importance of two-way media and a two-way web followed.
Mr. Brett posed the following questions:
· What can/should we learn from old technologies?
· Where are the logical connection points between/among diverse information resources?
· What is the next Killer App (i.e. Mosaic)?
· What information should we capture and how to go about doing that?
· What application information is relevant to your community?
· How can the NLANR Advanced Applications Clearinghouse work with you?
Mr. Brett then presented a list of tools, organized by category:
· Hardware
- Laptop, PDA, Wireless, Digital Camera
· Composition
- TextPad
- MS Word
- HomeSite HTML editor
- Power Point
· Communication
- Eudora
- AOL Instant Messenging
- Internet Explorer
· Collaboration
- Caucus
- ViaVideo
-
· Research
- Google
- Dog Pile
- Online Communities
· Creativity
- MindManager
- Visio
· Personal Information Managers (PIMs)
- Palm Desktop
- Meeting Maker
- Card Scan Multimedia
- WinAmp
- Real Video
- QuickTime
- MS Media Player
- Lview Pro
· Information Management
- 1. bookmark managers:
- Bookmark Wizard
- eGems
- 2. webtop:
- Backflip!
- , Manila [InfoArk(ive)]
- 3. palm conduits:
- Documents to Go
- , PocketCites
- , Qed
· Work Group
- 1.web top apps:
- ThinkFree Office
- Star Office
- , PhP groupware
- 2.Peer-to-Peer:
- Groove Net
- Napster model (WIRED p2p)
Mr. Brett also presented a list of selected web addresses:
· Center for Networked Information Discovery and Retrieval
· Works in Progress: various diagrams & ideas
· Advanced Applications Clearinghouse
The Grid: Blueprint for a New Computing Environment
In closing, it was noted that Mr. Brett can be contacted by e-mail at ghb@dast.nlanr.net, by telephone at (703) 248-0120, or by facsimile at (703) 248-0100. His full name, title and affiliation(from the slides) is:
George H. Brett II , Senior Project Coordinator
National Laboratory for Applied Network Research
Distributed Applications Support Team
National Center for Supercomputing Applications
Additional websites associated with his work are:
National Laboratory for Applied Network Research(NLANR):
Advanced Applications Data Bases
Distributed Applications Support Team
Engineering Services
Measurement and Operations Analysis Team
TOOL DEMONSTRATION AND DISCUSSION
George Brett provided a demonstration of several web tools, including Backflip!, Manila, Caucus, and WikiWeb.
It was noted that WikiWeb is difficult to use. Text entry is easy, but entering links and images is tricky. Manila is an Internet server application that allows groups of writers, designers and graphics people to manage full-featured, high performance web sites through a browser interface. It is best suited for small groups. Mr. Brett cited loading time as a complaint. Theresa Noll commented that the President’s Council on Year 2000 Conversion used Caucus. She cited sustainability as a complaint.
A discussion about listserv technology followed. Mr. Brett explained that to often the listserv is a passive broadcast model; it sends information to each listserv member’s e-mail account. He said that he prefers using other web tools for information exchange. For example, he described an e-group web site that provides multiple ways to communicate (e.g., electronic mail, calendars, databases). Ms. Noll observed that listservs can be configured in various ways (e.g., moderated list, open list). The listserv also creates an automatic archive, so discussions are documented as they occur. Currently, the UAWG uses a one-way, moderated listserv to distribute monthly meeting announcements and minutes. Susan Turnbull reflected on different approaches for today’s expedition workshop attendees (i.e., guest contributors) to exchange ideas with the Universal Access Working Group members which is comprised of about 90 Federal employees. A discussion about candor and anonymity followed.
EXCHANGE OF INSIGHTS AND PERSPECTIVES
The guest contributors noted the importance of finding the right tools to facilitate information sharing and community development. Bill Smith commented on the need for tools that seamlessly support and augment people working together, including large gatherings at conferences. The tools shouldn't get in the way of the social interactions. John Scott observed that bringing people together to use technology is a challenge.. He also noted a project of the National Library of Medicine and the Pan American Health Organization to develop a disaster health information network for Honduras and Nicaragua. He said that the project team is trying to identify non-traditional information providers and “raise the validity” by making the network accessible. A discussion about two-way media followed.
Karl Hebenstreit discussed First.Gov initiatives that are reaching out and across agencies. Susan Turnbull reflected on how well-designed conferences that implement useful technologies would in turn leverage greater improvements in public service delivery. Participants could more learn and learn faster from one another. Guadalupe Pacheco reflected that his grandfather helped to build the transcontinental railroad. Today's technology is like a new high-speed railroad and those not "on board" will be left behind. Mr. Pacheco announced that HHS will host a Health Summit on September 4-6, 2001. 5000 people are already interested to attend the summit and there is only room for approximately 1000 people. He would like the conference to employ the right technology before, during, and after the conference so a "ring binder" notebook is not the only vehicle for transmitting information among participants. He expressed concern about establishing a follow-up mechanism for implementing recommendations and helping people stay in touch. For starters, George Brett suggested identifying people to serve as “champions” in certain areas.
Craig Holcomb introduced the topic of Section 508. He noted that tools purchased by the Government after June 21, 2001, must be 508 compliant (usable by people with disabilities). It is important to encourage industry to incorporate 508 requirements into their products. Tom Tate noted how USDA brings people from rural areas into “target centers” to see how technology how can accommodate people, including people with disabilities. Bob Maslyn discussed a Federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council initiative to define government policy regarding web site compliance.
George Brett noted the NLANR Clearinghouse as a resource. He encouraged us to consider adding agency projects involving the research or education community to the Clearinghouse database.
Theresa Noll suggested establishing a listserv for the workshop attendees to facilitate further on-line discussions. In addition, an accessible collaboration space is being established to facilitate exchange between UAWG members and guest contributors.
ADJOURNMENT
Susan Turnbull thanked everyone for attending the first UA Expedition Workshop. She extended special thanks to George Brett for sharing his knowledge with the group. Suggestions about who to invite to the next workshop are welcome. Minutes will be distributed to the 1) UAWG listserv 2) the UA-Expedition listserv, and the 3) Collaboration space when it is established.
ATTENDEES
George Brett, NLANR ghb@dast.nlanr.net
Karl Hebenstreit, GSA Karl.hebenstreit@gsa.gov
Craig Holcomb, NSA lcholco@nsa.gov
Bob Maslyn, GSA bob.maslyn@gsa.gov
Martha Matzke, ITRD matzke@itrd.gov
Theresa Noll, GSA theresa.noll@gsa.gov
Guadalupe Pacheco, HHS gpacheco@osophs.dhhs.gov
John Scott, CPSC jcscott@cpsc.com
William Smith, ODII aic@odii.com
Susan Turnbull, GSA susan.turnbull@gsa.gov
Tom Tate, ACE tateace@aol.com