|
Send comments and suggestions
to
This website
is compliant with the W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative Guidelines and is
optimized for screen readers
|
APPROPRIATE USE OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE VERMONT JUDICIARY CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES Prepared by the Vermont Judiciary Technology Committee Presented to and Approved by the Vermont Supreme Court October 13, 1998 Vermont Judiciary Technology Committee:
John A. Dooley, Chair, Vermont Supreme Court Associate Justice INTRODUCTION New technologies, and new uses of old technologies, offer opportunities for us to improve how we do our jobs and deliver a better product to the public. Courts can particularly benefit from new technologies because we process large volumes of information in repetitive ways. Moreover, we are interlinked with others who process information and communicate using new technologies, and we must be accessible to them. Making choices in employing new technologies can be challenging. There is a lot at stake in terms of money and human resources. The possibilities seem almost limitless, but the consequences of a poor decision can be harmful. Thus, choices must be made carefully, with active participation of those most affected by the decisions. The Vermont Judiciary Technology Committee has gone through a process of examining available technologies in depth, and considering whether and how to employ them in a world of limited resources. The following pages present the general outline of a technology plan for the next few years. This plan was widely circulated in the judiciary "family" in the Spring and Summer of 1998. Members of the Technology Committee met with judges, including probate and assistant judges, magistrates and hearing officers, and court managers to take comments on the plan. Court staff were invited to make comments directly to members of the committee and by mail or e-mail. Many comments were received during this "input" process. The Committee also held meetings with representatives of persons outside the judiciary most affected by the plan. The Committee met specifically with representatives of the states' attorneys, public defenders, Attorney General, Office of Child Support and agencies involved in criminal justice or juvenile cases. The committee also met with representatives of the Vermont Bar Association, Vermont Trial Lawyers Association, Law Line, American Civil Liberties Union, Vermont Law School, Vermont Press Association and the Burlington Free Press. All of these meetings were very helpful in formulating the final plan. WHERE HAVE WE COME FROM We need go back only fifteen years to view a Vermont court system without computers and automation. All records were kept manually. In District Court, much of the data entry was made manually by judges on the infamous DDR (Docket Disposition Report). Word processing technology was emerging with memory typewriters and dedicated word processors. The in-court record was made by stenographers and some audio tape machines. The past ten years have brought about tremendous technological change, fueled by the development and growth of the personal computer as a personal productivity tool. Courts, which by their nature process and store large quantities of information about people and events, have become natural users of new technologies. The Vermont courts have been national leaders in use of some of that technology. Vermont made its first incursion into the world of automation with the Vermont Automated Docketing System, VTADS1. We bought some UNIX microcomputers for larger District Courts and the Supreme Court and locally developed software to automate case tracking and management of the small claims docket, and some other district court dockets, and the supreme court docket. In this initial stage, the Judiciary hired its first automation staff, led from the beginning by Bob Squires, and learned how to record and manage paper events electronically. Many of our staff became computer literate (or maybe semi-literate) in this initial stage. The big leap forward occurred in 1988 and 1989 with the design and implementation of VTADS2, a comprehensive docket management system for all dockets. For the first time, a group of judges, court managers, court administrative staff and automation staff came together in a committee to set forth a vision of what court automation should look like in Vermont courts. That vision was translated into performance specifications and eventually into computer programs that are now running on court computers in all district and family courts and in many superior courts. That vision included the first use of computers in the court room to record events during high volume proceedings and, in district court, to eliminate the DDR. In 1990, the National Center for State Courts touted VTADS2 as a national model for automated court case management and docketing systems. Although our main efforts have gone to VTADS2, automation has come to other court activities. More and more courts are using automatic video systems to keep the court record. Our computers are networked to the internet, and the judiciary's world wide web site provides information to the public about our court operations and the schedules of individual courts. E-mail has replaced the telephone and "snail mail." Word processing files are sent from court to court attached to electronic mail. We have learned a lot from the technologies we have employed, and particularly from VTADS2. Although all our staff have become much more computer literate, we have learned about the importance of training and the fact that we never seem to do enough of it to make the electronic systems reach their potential. We have learned that technology is empowering-- we can carry around whole libraries on small disks and search them electronically--, but very challenging and sometimes threatening. Technology brings about fundamental changes in the way we do our job, and these changes are not always for the better. We have learned that we must harness technology to meet our goals, and not grab every technological innovation for its own sake. THE PRESENT VTADS2 is approaching its tenth anniversary. Given the pace of technological advance, we know that ten-year old systems are necessarily out of date. Moreover, new uses of technology, and new technologies, have emerged. Many courts use video systems for arraignments and other proceedings where it is not necessary for all participants to be in the same place. Paperless electronic litigation is in use in a number of courts. CDROM technology has made electronic research tools more available and affordable. The internet has created new opportunities for public access to information. The time is ripe to reevaluate the technologies we currently use and to look at new technologies and new uses of technology. In the computer world, the largest transformation since we designed VTADS2 has been in the functionality of the personal computer and particularly in the introduction of the graphical user interface (GUI, or in the jargon, "gooey"). The one-color text screens of VTADS2 are disappearing, replaced by color PC screens that use graphics and mouse-clicks to perform basic functions. The change is more than an improvement, and more pleasing look, for the same operations. The GUI systems greatly improve the power of information management. Virtually all new software is now written for the GUI environment. If we want this new software, we must operate in this environment. The hardest decision in harnessing and managing technology is determining when to make a leap to a new technological level. Any technology we endorse today will be superseded by better technology by the time we actually put it into place in our courts. Thus, the fact there is a better "mousetrap" (not a pun) is not alone a reason to make significant changes in our use of technology. We need to be sure the timing is right for change. PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE The judiciary automation committee has been struggling with the question of when and how to employ new technologies in our courts for the last couple of years. Members of the committee attended the national Court Technology Conferences in 1995 and 1997 and observed in depth new uses of technology and the improvements in old uses. With the assistance of Jim McMillan, the court technology GURU of the National Center of States Courts, the committee spent two days in February looking at new functions and systems. The committee also examined in depth the planning, development and implementation of new case management systems in Utah and New Mexico. Following the information gathering, the committee went through a planning process that identified all the technological advances and innovations we could employ and ranked them in order of feasibility and desirability. The top three advances were explored by subcommittees, each answering the following question: For the new or improved use of technology involved, what goal should we reach in three years and what are our priorities in reaching this goal? The committee's suggested answers to this question were assembled in a draft version of this plan. As discussed in the introduction, the draft went through a lengthy and extensive comment process. The committee's answers to the question for each of the technological advances identified are contained in the following sections. PROPOSALS AND PRIORITIES FOR THE FUTURE The committee identified three highest priority areas for technological advances for the next three years. Each of the areas were then "fleshed out" by subcommittees leading to the proposed vision for the automation of the Vermont Judiciary in the year 2002. The areas, with some of the detail supplied by the subcommittees, are: 1. ELECTRONIC LITIGATION -- The judiciary uses massive amounts of paper that must be manipulated by hand and stored. Electronic litigation offers the opportunity to manage workflow, documents and information electronically. Documents can be read and used by many people, at the same time, and from any location. "Smart" documents can make their own docket entries. Storage of paper would be unnecessary. The case file is available to any member of the public with a computer. Thus, the goal in this area is to move the judiciary towards the paperless court through an electronic case file, electronic filing of documents and electronic workflow software that moves the "file" through the court for appropriate action. The case file, and all filings, would be accessible on-line. Information for and about cases can be transmitted electronically from and to affected entities, like the correction department. Electronic files would be transmitted to the Supreme Court electronically and serve as the record on appeal; the Supreme Court would also receive electronic filing in these cases. The judiciary faces a difficult challenge in providing pro se litigants the information and personal assistance necessary for them to participate effectively in litigation. To some degree, the judiciary web site can be used to provide pro se users with instructional information and documents and other information to participate. Court documents can be prepared and submitted through answers to relatively simple and straight forward questions. Progress on a case can be monitored on the web. 2. FLEXIBLE, USER FRIENDLY, CASE AND DATA ACCESS SYSTEM -- The goal in this area is to have available on-line a complete, current and statewide database of information on all judicial proceedings in a central data warehouse. From the database, staff can generate all needed reports and appropriate judicial orders. Consistent with policies on access to case information, the database will be accessible to lawyers, litigants and the public. 3. ELECTRONIC TOOLS FOR JUDGES AND STAFF -- The goal in this area is to provide judges and law clerks with access from home or work location to electronic research tools that provide access to a broad range of legal materials and cases from federal and all state courts. Also, judges and law clerks would have access to an electronic benchbook of materials, like rules and jury charges, that are used on the bench. All staff will have access to currently-available groupware for e-mail and other communication, file transfer, data analysis, appointment calendars, scheduling and the like. The selection of these areas involved two significant decisions that reflect assumptions that underlie the goals. These decisions are as important as the areas selected for advancement and the goals within the areas. They are: A. VTADS2 SHOULD BE ENHANCED AND RETAINED -- This decision may be surprising because of the age of VTADS2 and the software development that has occurred in case management systems in the last few years. Indeed, the technology committee took a hard look at these new systems, only to discover that despite its age and text-based interface, VTADS2 stands up well against newer case management and docketing systems. Further, the committee believes that the technological advances described above are feasible while retaining VTADS2. Thus, the committee has concluded that the time is not right to change the case management and docketing system, that is, to go to a VTADS3. B. THE JUDICIARY SHOULD MOVE TO GUI -- Although it is not yet time to abandon VTADS2, it is time to move to a personal computer GUI environment. This means that VTADS2 will be accessed from a personal computer and will be one program of many available from the PC. While the PC is using VTADS2, the screen will show text, and entry will come from the keyboard, as now. At other times, the PC will use graphics programs, like Netscape to access the Internet. Without the shift to a GUI interface, the technological advances described above are not possible. The decision to establish priorities and pursue areas that are assigned the highest priority means that other technological advances, which are assigned a lower priority, are unlikely to get much attention over the next few years. This is not, of course, a decision that other uses of technology should not be employed if we had the money and staffing to do so. It reflects the reality that staff and money are limited. Two technologies deserve some mention. In recent years, the judiciary has used computer-controlled video systems to keep the record in some courtrooms and has increased reliance on audio systems. New digital audio technology is now available to allow the audio record to be stored, transmitted and analyzed as a computer file. Digital video technology is expected to be available shortly as higher-capacity storage devices are developed. Although the incremental shift that has been occurring may continue, this plan does not include significant advances in keeping the court record in the next few years. Also, there have been significant improvements in video conferencing technology. Video arraignment is in use in many courts. It was demonstrated at judicial college two years ago, and a pilot of video arraignment will start shortly between the Bennington District Court and the Rutland Correctional Center. This plan does not include a significant statewide investment in this technology in the next three years although it may be appropriate to extend the Bennington demonstration to some other counties. Although extensive automation of the probate court would increase access to the court, the availability of its records and the ability of non-lawyers to use it, this plan does not include automation of the probate court. Other activities will, however, also benefit users of that court. For example, the judiciary web site can contain instructional information on how to use the court and copies of all forms which can then be downloaded for completion. Three other points require special notice. Up to this point, the Vermont judiciary has automated its own functions and has not required the use of technology by court users. Future advances in areas like electronic filing will, however, require new technological linkage of the courts, its users and the public. We will have to agree on common hardware and software, and common protocols to use this hardware and software. Thus, the implementation of the plan to reach our goals must involve the judicial family and many persons without the judiciary who interact with it. Second, both electronic litigation and a new case and data access system will not occur without careful development and testing (with more refinement and development). The method used for developing and refining VTADS2 appeared to work well, and will be used for these new technology initiatives, especially for electronic litigation. Under this method, one court is chosen (willingly!) as a "guinea pig" to first try out the new hardware and software. Once most of the bugs are worked out in that court, the new hardware and software is rolled out to other courts over regular intervals, such as monthly. Training is done in each court before roll out occurs. Third, none of the new technologies will be sufficiently valuable unless the judiciary makes a new, and expanded, commitment to training and support. This commitment may require that we develop our own computer laboratory and training center and create new support positions, for example, for an electronic librarian to update electronic bench books and libraries. Although it is too early to specify the exact resources needed, the commitment to training and support is an essential part of the plan. VISION OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE JUDICIAL BRANCH IN THE YEAR 2002 Following is a picture of what the court system will look like, and how it will operate, as the plan is implemented in the following three years. TRIAL COURTS ALL TRIAL COURTS. Essential information on all open cases in all trial courts, and the schedules for all courts as they are developed, will be available in a standardized form through a central web site. It is probable that some data will be stored in a central data warehouse accessible by all court staff, litigants, attorneys, and the public, and that some will be accessed directly from local court databases in each county. DISTRICT COURT. All cases will be filed electronically, and all case files will be electronic in all District Courts in the state. All State's Attorneys, the Attorney General, Public Defenders, and contract counsel will participate in electronic filing and data transfer. This will be possible because all cases are handled by a relatively small and manageable number of lawyers and law offices. FAMILY COURT. Child support, juvenile, and parentage cases will be filed electronically in all counties. Relief from Abuse Orders can be generated by judges and after-hours workers from remote locations and transferred electronically to a central data base. Juvenile cases, which involve the same attorneys as District Court cases, will have electronic case files. A significant amount of material in parentage cases will be transferred electronically to and from the Office of Child Support. With respect to other cases (primarily divorce), electronic filing and electronic case files will be in development in one court and will include pro se litigants. SUPERIOR COURT. Electronic filing and electronic case files will be in place in the superior court for the same county which is piloting electronic litigation in family matters. ENVIRONMENTAL COURT. Electronic filing and electronic case files will be in pilot in the Environmental Court. VERMONT JUDICIAL BUREAU. Electronic filing, an electronic case file and electronic workflow software will be in place in the Judicial Bureau. The Bureau will have imaging capacity to make it a fully paperless court. SUPREME COURT All cases filed electronically in a trial court will continue as electronic cases in the Supreme Court. The record will automatically be transmitted to the Supreme Court on filing of the notice of appeal. Creation of the transcript, if any, will be managed electronically. The printed case and briefs will be filed electronically. ACCESS TO CASE AND MANAGEMENT INFORMATION Docket information for all cases in all trial courts throughout the state and the Supreme Court will be available by computer. Judicial officers and court staff will have extensive access from their work stations. Consistent with a comprehensive policy on public access to court information to be developed by rule by the Supreme Court, the bar and the public will have access over the Internet or modem or a public monitor at the court counter. Different levels of information may be made available to each group, depending on the type of information they generally need. For example, a judge may have access to notes made at prior hearings in the case, whereas those would not be available to public users. Information made confidential by law or the Supreme Court rule will have security limitations on access. Management information about case flow and case disposition will be available on a state-wide basis. For example, information such as the number of different types of cases filed, and the manner by which they were resolved (trial, settlement), and the length of time to conclusion, can be maintained, sorted, and retrieved more easily. Thus, one will be able to analyze issues such as whether divorce cases in which there were two attorneys are more or less likely to result in the filing of post-judgment motions than cases without attorneys, or what the trends are in DWI cases, or what the rates of appeal are in small claims cases. Reports on such data can be generated county by county, or state-wide, and will include charts and graphics. It will be reasonably available without extensive training and without having to obtain it only through the court administrator's information office. Case scheduling information will use a state-wide database, so that one court will not schedule an attorney for a court date at the same time as that attorney is already scheduled to appear in a different court. COURT ORDERS Court Orders will be available on-line, at least in cases where there is an electronic case file. Where orders are printed, the format and style will reflect the dignity of the court and command respect. They will be easy to read. THE WORK OF JUDICIAL OFFICERS, COURT MANAGERS, LAW CLERKS, AND STAFF Court personnel will work on personal computers in a windows environment. A mouse or keyboard will be used to point-and-click using a graphical user interface, or GUI, technology. Judicial officers will have access to a computer, on and off the bench, and it will have an electronic bench book that includes practical tools as well as standard reference materials such as statutes and rules. They and Supreme Court Justices will have computer-based research services providing access to federal and out-of-state case law, law reviews, treatises, and encyclopedias. Jury instructions, substantive legal memos, and trial court opinions will be available in a central bank that judges can reach through their personal computers. Law clerks will also have full access to computer-based research services and the bank of instructions, memos, and opinions. Not every court will have as many law books as they do now, since many of those same materials will be more broadly available electronically, but book research will still be available at designated planned locations such as the State Library, Vermont Law School, and perhaps one or more other regional sites. A staff person, possibly the chief trial court law clerk, will be assigned as electronic librarian to manage the computer-based research services and statewide bank of electronic materials. Court managers and staff will use personal computers to schedule cases, maintain docket information, maintain and retrieve management information, run reports and analyze case flow, provide appropriate clerical assistance to judges, maintain and analyze their own statistical and financial information, and share information with others. E-mail and direct electronic transfer will be the primary method of communication within the judicial branch and with lawyers and recurring court users. For example, memos will be e-mailed rather than mailed. Employee hours and expense information will be sent electronically rather than by mail or fax. Routine mailings for communication with employees and court personnel will be replaced by routine e-mail and file transfer documents. Notices to lawyers will be transmitted by e-mail. TRAINING AND HELP Any new technology program will be accompanied by formal training for its users. For example, staff in a District Court about to begin electronic filing will have formal professional training before being expected to use it, and follow-up support as it proceeds. The judicial branch will have an on-going training capacity, such as a central technology lab where all court personnel can go for training and updating in the use of the technology pertinent to their particular roles. This applies equally to trial judges and counter clerks. The judiciary will have a staff person assigned solely to technology training to organize and conduct training sessions for all court personnel suitable to their needs, including basic classes, workshops, and individual training. Some training will take place at the various courthouse locations around the state, and some will be offered at a central location. Some may be provided by professional trainers under contract. Each judicial branch employee will be expected to attend periodic training and update or refresher workshops. The technology trainer will regularly travel to each court to assist staff in their onsite use of technology programs. Computer-based training programs will be available for most software and hardware in general usage so that staff and judges can train themselves at their own pace. Manuals, training teams, and a call-in help line will also be available. THE COURTROOM Personal computers will be on all court benches to run all software programs, with full access to both the court database and to the electronic bench book. Court staff will make docket entries and establish schedules from the courtroom. Orders may be generated by the judge or staff within the courtroom. Attention will be given to maintaining decorum in the courtroom and ensuring that technology use does not disturb the proper atmosphere of the court and the functioning of court processes. For example, courtroom computers, whether laptops or desktop PC's will have quiet keyboards to allow note-taking or data entry without disturbing the proceedings. Electronic hookups will be available at counsel tables to enable attorneys to use laptops in the courtroom. The courtroom will be wired to enable the lawyers to present evidence electronically. The record will be made using current methods: audio tapes, video tapes, and stenographers, depending on the court and the needs of the case. Real-time reporting will be available on an arranged basis for cases for which it is suited. ACCESS TO COURT INFORMATION THROUGH THE WEB The judicial branch web site will be the central point of access to and source of information about the judiciary. More information about the scheduling of cases will be provided. For example, a District Court can post month-at-a-glance calendars showing the dates of calendar calls, jury draws, and trial days. Additional information about how to file a case will be included, such as instructions for filing a small claims case. Each court will provide information about community and legal resources of the type normally posted on bulletin boards at court counters to help people in their use of the court system. For example, the hours and operation of a Free Legal Clinic available to county residents might be posted. The dates and locations of all Helping Children Cope With Divorce seminars statewide might be shown. Instructions will be provided about how to locate public information about cases. The public will be able to download and even fill out standard court forms electronically. Consistent with the rules on access and security, the public, including the law enforcement community, will have direct access to an electronic database with all Relief from Abuse Orders. Similarly, the public, including OCS, will have access to a current database of child support obligations.ATTORNEYS The use of the Internet by attorneys is exploding. West Corporation estimates that 95% of attorneys in firms of more than 15 have Internet access, and more than 50% of attorneys in one and two person offices do. They project that virtually all will have access within two years. The Vermont Bar Association has nearly 1400 attorney e-mail addresses, practically two-thirds of the active bar. The Internet is ideal for conducting the text-based business of the law. We need not wait for comprehensive electronic filing to begin using Internet technology to improve service and communications with Vermont's attorneys. As mentioned before, notice by e-mail shall be the norm for attorneys in all courts. Automatic e-mail reminders could be implemented. Statewide conflict-checking will be implemented. All lawyers will send and receive routine communications by e-mail. Attorneys will be able to maintain current address information (including e-mail address!) through a web interface, and receive court calendars automatically through e-mail. We will continue to post Vermont Supreme Court decisions to the Internet and add automatic e-mail distribution of summaries of those opinions. Significant trial court decisions will be available electronically. Attorneys involved in electronic filing (States' Attorneys, Public Defenders, Contract Counsel, and attorneys in electronic filing courts) will have direct electronic access to the court as appropriate for electronic filing of pleadings and transfer of information. In non-electronic filing courts, attorneys will submit proposed findings and orders on disk or e-mail attachment, and judges or clerical support staff will use them in preparing findings, conclusions, and orders. DATA EXCHANGE WITH EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES The judiciary will work with executive branch agencies with ongoing needs for court information to share that information electronically. Direct access will be established for other forms of specific information transfer, particularly with criminal justice agencies. For example, orders in civil suspension cases can be transferred directly to the Department of Motor Vehicles for license suspensions. Arrest warrants will be transferred electronically to law enforcement. Criminal charge arraignment and disposition information will be transferred to the Vermont Crime Information Center. PRO SE COURT USERS Pro se court users present special problems in the introduction of new technologies because they may not have access to these technologies, and may not be comfortable learning about them at times of crisis when they are seeking court relief or responding to court filings. Implementation for pro se users will, therefore, require maintaining current levels of access for all litigants and improving access for any pro se user who has direct or indirect access to the technology. The court web site will have extensive information on how to litigate a case pro se, with specific instructional materials for small claims and family court cases. It will contain on-line questionnaires that will allow completion of pleadings and forms, and filing them electronically, in a relatively simple question and answer format. Computer terminals will be available in all courts for use by pro se litigants. Staff assistance will be available specifically to help pro se litigants use electronic resources. The judiciary will have working agreements with agencies which advise pro se litigants, for example, Vermont Law Line, to make information and services available to enable these agencies to fully serve pro se litigants and provide access to the courts. Working with those agencies, the judiciary will offer assistance in obtaining web access to receive electronic notices and filings and for access to case information. Persons without electronic access will continue to receive notices and filings through the mail. IMAGING AND PHASE-IN The vision of the technology available by 2002 is necessarily broad, and many specific details need to be filled in as implementation commences. The plan specifically does not resolve the extent to which imaging will be in use within the judiciary and will be required of court users. Some items filed in court -- for example, some exhibits -- have never existed in electronic form. Others may exist in electronic form, but the filer does not have the electronic version. It may be appropriate to require that some of these items be turned into electronic form through imaging. It is unlikely, however, that everything can be filed electronically. The plan also does not specifically address the issue of phase-in for some users. Some who commented on the draft plan suggested that it is unrealistic to expect that all court users, including lawyers, will be able to engage in electronic litigation according to the time lines in the plan. They suggested, therefore, that users have the option to continue in the current system of paper filings. Maintaining duplicative paper and electronic systems may be labor intensive and expensive and defeat the purposes of the new technologies. On the other hand, some overlap of systems may be necessary, particularly for pro se users. It is impossible at this time to determine the extent to which phase-in and optional systems are necessary because the issue involves a prediction of the extent to which new technologies will be used by legal professionals and the society as a whole at some time in the future. The electronic litigation section of the plan specifically begins with litigation involving a limited number of repetitive users and moves out to a broader group of users. The plan overall offers incentives for court users to become involved in the electronic world. Throughout the implementation period, there will be educational events to inform lawyers and citizens about electronic litigation and how to participate in it effectively and efficiently. Continuous planning will involve court users, directly and through organizations like the Vermont Bar Association. It is the hope, if not the expectation, of the automation committee that there will only be a very limited need to maintain paper systems for any users as of the implementation dates specified in the plan. The judiciary remains committed, however, to ensuring access to all court users, and will maintain such systems as will ensure that access.
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? This vision is the judiciary statement of how new technologies can be best applied to enable the judiciary and its users to meet the goals of: (1) resolving civil disputes and criminal matters fairly and expeditiously at minimal expense to litigants and the taxpayers, (2) protecting persons from abuses by others and by the state; (3) establishing clear and ascertainable law to enable citizens and businesses to conduct their affairs accordingly: and (4) providing the public with the services and information they need to understand the operation of the judiciary and use it appropriately. Completing this document is only a first step in a long process. It presents a vision of where we want to be in the year 2002. It describes the destination, but it is not a roadmap for getting there. Achieving this coherent vision will require involving many people and integrating many new technologies. It will require numerous independent projects, some sequential and some simultaneous, and it will require new resources, probably from diverse funding sources. Now we must create the detailed plan, acquire the resources, and manage the process so that all effected groups are involved and the goals are met.
|
This website
is compliant with the W3C's Web Accessibility Initiative Guidelines and is
optimized for screen readers |