ADMINISTRATIVE URTS OF GEORGIA Web Currents OFFICEOFTHECO 1973 January 2003 A Publication of the Administrative Office of the Georgia Courts www.georgiacourts.org Vol. 3 No. 1 OASIS LegalXML Begins Work By Greg Arnold The Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) invited LegalXML to join its membership early in 2002. OASIS is the premiere international information standards setting body and has led the way in approval of XML . The LegalXML Board of Directors accepted the invitation and joined the organization, attending their first meeting in Salt Lake City on July 19, 2002. Mr. John Greacen of Greacen Associates, LLC and Ms. Mary McQueen of the Washington Administrative Office of the Courts serve as co-chairs of the Court Filing Technical Committee. John represents the private sector and Mary represents the government sector; both are eminently qualified to guide the work of the Technical Committee. The Court Filing Technical Committee created subcommittees that will develop working documents and make recommendations to the Joint Technology Committee (JTC) of the Conference of State Court Administrators and the National Association of Court Managers (COSCA/NACM). The subcommittees will continue work begun in LegalXML in the areas of Case Management System Application Interface, Query and Response, Court Document, Court Policy, Court Forms, and a Trusted Repository. The Technical Committee voted to submit the Electronic Court Filing 1.1 and its DTD for approval by the Joint Technology Committee of COSCA/NACM for late July 2002. This Applying Electronic Communicaton to High-Profile Court Cases By Sharon Evans The phrase "business as usual" greatly understates the impact of a high-profile court case on the daily routine of the court. Detailed information on how to survive a high-profile case was presented by the speakers at the GCCA Spring Conference in April. Their presentation included how to plan and set up appropriate electronic communication systems among the court person- nel handling the case, and between them, the media, and other interested parties. The speakers at the conference were Thomas K. Kahn, Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Atlanta; Thomas D. Hall, Clerk, Supreme Court, Tallahassee; and Jon S. Wheeler, Clerk, First District Court of Appeal, Tallahassee. Mr. Kahn was continued page 4 specification is frozen unless modified by the National Consortium or the JTC in the course of the approval process. The Technical Committee scheduled its next meeting in Cambridge in October 2002. Members and nonmembers can follow the Internet discussions of the group by subscribing to the OASIS discussion list maintained at http://www.oasis-open.org The Georgia Administrative Office of the Courts is an organizational member of OASIS and continues the active participation of Georgia in XML development begun by the Georgia Courts Automation Commission. Comprehensive minutes of all proceedings are available at the OASIS web site. InsideWEB CURRENTS How Does a Standard Become a Standard? . . . . . . . pg. 2 AOC Technology Implements Network Applications . . . . . . pg. 5 Los Angeles Court Exerts Internet Influence . . . . . . . . . pg.7 Service of Process: Quick and Painless? . . . . . . . . . . . . pg. 9 Adapt Your Websites for Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . pg. 10 Behind the Scenes of Online Payments . . . . . . . . .pg. 13 Electronic Information Storage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .pg. 14 2 WEB CURRENTS January 2003 How Does a Standard Become a By Greg Arnold At a recent meeting about integrated justice standards, a PowerPoint presentation evoked strained laughter when the first slide flashed on the screen. It read, "The nice thing about standards is that there are so many to choose from." Was this mere cynicism, snide humor, or real truth? Another rhetorical question follows for the reader, "Who should we, the court decisionmakers, go to for standards?" And the peculiar answer, "Well, depends on who you ask." None of this apparent ambiguity is really helpful to a judge, a court administrator, or a clerk of court who is seriously trying to get a stone-like foundation to implement a computerbased judicial administration system. Where can a user obtain standards? How can a user implement the standards? And finally for this article, "Just who develops the standard?" First, the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators CCJ/COSCA issued Resolution 13 in August of 2001 designating COSCA as the agent to develop standards. (The resolution is printed on page 3.) COSCA, however, does not operate in a power- State Court Automation Standards Development and Approval Process July 2002 Conference of Chief Justices Global Justice Information Advisory Committee "registration" implementation Conference of State Court Administrators Board of Directors approval National Association for Court Management Board of Directors approval COSCA/NACM Joint Technology Committee approval National Consortium for State Court Automation Standards approval OASIS LegalXML Technical Committee development Electronic Filing Standards Subcommittee development based pressure cooker. Now for the good news -- a system has been implemented that structures standards development in an open, comment-based, review process. The rest of this article will provide commentary for the information points numbered on the chart presented below. 1. Electronic Filing Standards Subcommittee. This level of the standards setting process is where ideas arise or ideas are sent from within the judicial system for actual development work. Judges, administrators, clerks, court reporters, academics, and vendors make up the subcommittee. The members are volunteers who are supported financially by their organizations. In separate work groups the members hammer together general electronic standards and extensible mark-up language (XML) standards. The functional standards needed for a civil case management system is an example of a general electronic standard developed at this level. The Court Filing 1.1 DTD, the electronic envelope, used to file a case into a court's case management system is an example of an XML-based standard. Members commonly work in both groups and contribute general and specialized knowledge and perspectives. 2. OASIS LegalXML Technical Committee. OASIS is the Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards. It is a global not-for-profit consortium, organized in technical committees, which reviews, tests, and recommends standards for XML. Members set the OASIS technical agenda in an open process that expressly promotes integration of for-profit vendors, academics, court administrators and court technologists. All work products are reviewed and comments from both January 2003 Standard? policy and technical members are considered and, more often than not, are put into the proposed standard. In addition to these stringent internal reviews by OASIS, the work products of the committee are then reviewed by a Joint Standards Development Team (JSD) appointed by the National Consortium for State Court Automation (NCSCA). 3. NCSCA Work Product Endorsement. After OASIS and the JSD reconcile any differences between the two review processes, the work product is then endorsed by the NCSCA and forwarded to the next stage in the standards process. 4. Joint Technology Committee (JTC) of COSCA and National Association of Court Management (NACM). After a proposed standard leaves the development phase and is reviewed by NCSCA, it is forwarded to the JTC for review. When the review is completed, the standard is published by the National Center for State Courts for public review. If public comment is heavy or if substantive changes are needed, JTC will refer the standard back to the Electronic Filing Standards Subcommittee or to OASIS LegalXML. If no substantial comments are made, the JTC will forward the proposed standard to its respective boards. With joint approval, the standard moves from "Proposed" to "Recommended" status. 5. Global. If appropriate, the standard can go the federal level for approval in the Global Justice Information Network registry. Global is an organization that includes the National Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Association of Sheriffs, the FBI, and many others. continued page 9 WEB CURRENTS 3 CONFERENCE OF CHIEF JUSTICES Resolution 13 Implementation of Automation Standards WHEREAS, the Conference of Chief Justices recognizes the expertise and authority of the Conference of State Court Administrators and the National Association for Court Management in developing and approving national standards for the application of technology to the state courts; and WHEREAS, those organizations will in the coming years promulgate technology standards, including functionality standards for case management information systems, standards for electronic filing of court documents, and standards for the use of XML in transmitting data to and from courts; and WHEREAS, effective implementation of those standards depends upon their adoption and use by state courts; and WHEREAS, chief justices and chief judges of the state courts of last resort have the responsibility to provide leadership to ensure that courts adopt and use technology standards; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Conference encourages its members to do the following: 1. Disseminate information about proposed and approved technology standards among the courts of their states; 2. Encourage the inclusion of approved technology standards in state strategic plans; 3. Encourage executive branch agencies to use approved communication protocols and standards in information-sharing systems that involve the courts; 4. When they have the power to do so, adopt rules or orders directing courts within the state: a. To comply with applicable national communication protocols and standards when procuring or developing new electronic filing and information-sharing systems or when adding these functions to existing case management information systems; b. To comply with applicable national standards when procuring or developing other new applications, unless there is compelling justification not to do so; and c. To comply with, or migrate toward, applicable national standards when enhancing existing applications. 4 WEB CURRENTS January 2003 Applying Electronic Communication cont. clerk during the Elian Gonzalez trial; Mr. Hall and Mr. Wheeler were clerks during the 2000 election court cases. Two of the dominant issues applicable to high-profile cases are the large number of people who need to receive information and the wide variety of communication methods used to distribute information to them. People in the Communication Loop Judges, clerks, court staff, counsel, jury members High on the priority list are the court-related people who directly impact the progress and outcome of the case. They need easy access to the court, as well as continual updates on changes to court access and business hours. Law enforcement, security staff Security and communication processes must be established early on so that the appropriate people can be contacted in case of emergencies, schedule changes, press conferences, etc. Court to media/media to media The judge and the clerk work together to establish media access to court documents and proceedings. It makes life easier for all participants if the media receives timely information in an organized manner (announcements of upcoming press conferences, distribution times for handouts, times when online information will be posted). Also, the media needs to know in advance what is expected of them for instance, where they can set up audio/visual equipment, if they can use text pagers during course proceedings, if they need to designate a representative for the group, or set up a "pool" arrangement among the various media outlets. Family members Make sure family members can keep in touch because there will be long work hours and frequent periods of inaccessibility. Other courts, legislators, VIPs These people may be indirectly involved in the case, have court business, or may just be curious. High-profile case stats from the Florida Supreme Court 2000 election cases 550 media in town 85 satellite trucks in town 2,500 e-mails per day 1,000 telephone calls per day 22,000 copies per day 3,500,000 "hits" per day on the web site General public They may need access to the court facility in person, by web site, by e-mail, or by telephone to conduct whatever business is necessary. If there is public interest in the trial, they need to know how to get information on the progress of the trial and whether they have access to the courtroom. Electronic Distribution of Information Many types of communication are used during high-profile court cases with varying levels of reliability and ease. Annoyances such as busy signals, unanswered e-mails, full voice mail systems, and network downtime must be avoided. Major issues applicable to almost all forms of communication are equipment acquisition, equipment placement, storage space, power sources (electricity, batteries, generators), telephone lines, network availability, security, and personnel. Listed below are several communication methods along with the pros and cons of each. Telephone This is the easiest form of communication until the lines are overloaded. It can be the most unreliable communication vehicle during any high-profile case because primary participants cannot get through. During the Florida Supreme Court election cases in 2000, over 1,000 phone calls a day were received during working hours. Dedicated telephone lines, general information lines, and supplemental personnel to answer the phones are helpful. During this period of high-volume telephone use other court business calls and personal calls must be taken into account. Cell phone Do not give out your cell phone number to people you do not want to call you repeatedly -- like the press. Your cell phone may be one of few urgent access communication methods you have. Pagers Some members of the media may want to use two-way text pagers in the courtroom. The judge or clerk should decide whether this communication method will be allowed while court is in session. Photocopies It is estimated that the Florida Supreme Court produced 22,000 copies per day for distribution continued page 5 January 2003 WEB CURRENTS 5 AOC Technology Implements Network Applications By Sharon Evans Introduction In early July 2002, the Administrative Office of the Courts launched a new network system along with updated desktop standardization. Microsoft Exchange and Microsoft Office products were brought in to provide AOC an e-mail system and desktop software with international industry standards. The purpose of the new network configuration was to provide a foundation to support whatever initiatives AOC decides to undertake. The web portal, along with other electronic data collection applications, currently enables AOC to electronically collect data from the courts, replacing dependence on paper forms, faxes, and postal mail. Additional issues resolved by the network were 1) the upgrade and consolidation of email, calendaring, and meeting applications, 2) access to office documents via remote access, and 3) document sharing -- all with variable levels of security. Installation of the standard desktop resolved document incompatibility problems and provided upgrades to computer applications through a switch to cur- rent Microsoft products that replaced lower versions of sundry soft- ware applica- tions. Each Mr. Rex McElrath machine has a base installa- tion of Windows 2000, Office 2002, Internet Explorer 6, and F-Secure Anti-Virus. Rex McElrath, AOC Network Administrator, serves as project man- ager and developer of this system upgrade. He joined AOC in April 2002. He graduated from the University of Georgia with a major in Psychology, and has several IT certifi- cations including MCSE 2000 (Microsoft Certified Systems Engineer), CompTIA A+ (Computing Technology Industry Association), and ComTIA Net+. His role is to develop and maintain network systems for AOC and Judicial Council agencies. Under the direction of Greg Arnold, Assistant Director of Technology and Research, Rex was able to plan, equip, and implement the new network system in just a few weeks with only minor problems. The project was assigned in May and was implemented throughout AOC in early July. Within those few weeks, hardware and software was ordered, received, installed, and tested by a pilot group of eight employees. Team Work Leads to Success The pilot group consisted of William Lewis, Brian Collins, Deborah Atwater, Kevin Tolmich, Roxanne continued page 6 Applying Electronic Communication cont. to the media, court, etc. This is a costly, time-consuming way to deliver information given the personnel needed to make the copies, paper costs, equipment needed, and maintenance costs. Establish a policy for covering the cost of photocopies for noncourt related parties. The policy would cover the following questions will copies be provided for free, for a fee, at what cost, and how will fees be collected? Fax Sending and receiving faxed information can be just as cumbersome as using photocopies for communication. The same problems apply -- personnel, equipment, and maintenance costs. Internet Online delivery is an efficient method for distributing information to the media and other interested parties. They can get the information on their time rather than waiting for photocopies or faxes. Just make sure that current information is available and the network is reliable. E-mail During a high-profile case, e-mail systems are easily overloaded. There is also the problem of finding time to sift through and prioritize all the messages, which during the Florida election trials came to approximately 2,500 per day. Media News reports and press conferences release relevant court information to the general public through television, radio, and print media. Communication processes should be set up in advance and strictly followed to avoid confusion, minimize disruptions, and prevent the accidental release of information. One of the many useful suggestions that came out of the presentation was the need to begin planning for a high-profile case before one comes to your court. Many of the communication methods listed above are already in place in modern courts. A high-profile case dictates that you anticipate and plan for the inevitable increase in the number of court employees, number of members of the media, communication requirements and associated equipment. 6 WEB CURRENTS January 2003 AOC Network Applications cont. Harkcom, James Banks, Sharon Green, and myself. The group provided invaluable assistance with one of the most important tasks of any system installation -- usability testing. The participants represented a variety of AOC divisions, computer skill levels, and job responsibilities, including an administrative assistant, Oracle administrator, financial officer, and others. Weekly meetings were scheduled and each participant kept a log of questions, problems, and comments to be presented at the meeting. There were also numerous help calls between meetings, especially during the first few days of the installation. But, as expected, after awhile the participants were able to resolve minor issues among themselves and major issues were worked out before the full implementation. Ups and Downs While the project progressed well, there were of course some roadblocks as described below. 1. Rex needed to extract each individual AOC client machine from the external DOAS network that was still functioning for other state agencies. This was a big hurdle, but there was an advantage in being able to start from scratch in setting up a new system for AOC. 2. Standards, policies, and procedures had to be established -- concurrent with installation of the system -- to replace a wide variety of user hardware, software, and administrative tools 3. There was difficulty trying to communicate successfully with people about what was going on while trying to get everything done. As Rex admitted, "At times, I let the lines of communi- cation slip in favor of functionality more than I should have." 4. Working with poorly shipped and damaged hardware resulted in lost time; i.e., one weekend was spent trying to rebuild the disk system of one server. Benefits of the Network System There are substantial benefits derived from this system. As it is fine-tuned and new products are added, there will be additional benefits over time. 1. Enhanced employee productivity allowing multiple users to share important files and documents and simultaneously input data. 2. Greater security of confidential information through computer monitoring and server-level virus protection for e-mail and shared documents. Advanced systems for management and security are planned for the new future, such as Systems Management Server (SMS) and Public Key Infrastructure (PKI). 3. Better computer system stability than desktop systems because individual software applications, files, and printer connections can be backed up and restored from the server. 4. Internet access to files and e-mail while away from the office. Current task-sharing features available to AOC employees include meeting administration, file sharing, and Web access to e-mail and electronic files. Features anticipated in the future include instant messaging and team collaboration Web sites. AOC Technology's current focus is offering services to external agencies, such as providing hardware and developing system elements such as connectivity, security, databases, and other services. Web hosting services are also available. To find out specific information about the applications mentioned above and to find out if your agency or court would benefit from them, please contact AOC Technology at aoctechinfo@gaaoc.us Do you have any questions or comments about Web Currents? Greg Arnold Call Greg Arnold at 404.656.6413 or E-mail him (arnoldg@aoc.courts.state.ga.us). January 2003 WEB CURRENTS 7 Los Angeles Superior Court Exerts Internet Influence By Sharon Evans NeuLevel, Inc., an Internet domain registry, was selected to administer the .biz Internet domain, which was activat- the global purchase and sale of domain names, specifically stating that the sales were local transactions. For example, a businessman bond to be held as a potential damage award if NeuLevel prevailed in the lawsuit. NeuLevel could proceed with the lottery method until the ed in November 2001. To handle in Norway applying for a .biz case was decided in court. However, the anticipated tidal wave of online requests, they developed a lottery domain name through Easyspace.com in the United still at issue was whether the collection fees from applicants who will system for allocating requested Kingdom should not have the trans- receive nothing in return is an domain names. Under the system, NeuLevel charged a $2 non-refund- action invalidated by a court in L.A. The California court felt, howev- unfair business practice. In December 2001 NeuLevel able application fee during dropped the lottery a "land-rush phase" during which each applicant would have an equal Common Domain Name Registrars method in favor of a "round robin" distribution in order to end the legal chance at getting their requested domain. After Domain Restriction Registry Operated or Sponsored By challenges. The $2 application fee is to be the landrush phase ended, applications would be selected at random and awarded their names. Under California law a procedure under which a .aero .biz .com aviation industry businesses Societe Internationale de Telecommunications Aeronautiques SC NueLevel Verisign Global Registry Services returned to the applicants; however, the plaintiffs' attorney is still reviewing the new plan to make sure each applicant under the lottery plan will get a person pays consideration ($2.00) for the random opportunity (chance) to win a prize (domain name) is an illegal lottery. The California civil code allows private parties to sue companies conducting an illegal lottery under the grounds that it is an unfair .info .name .net .org .edu .mil .gov Afilias Limited individuals Global Name Registry Verisign Global Registry Services Verisign Global Registry Services education Network Solutions military institutions United States Military US government United States Government Resources: domainguru.com and icann.org refund. According to Internet commentators, the lesson learned from this experience is that ICANN is not an entity immune from political, legal, and international forces. There had been some concern about ICANN's accountability; business practice. An Arizona disc jockey and California er, that since the governing body of this legal challenge to ICANN's authority in the domain traffic safety school sued Virginia- domain registries is located in name realm has localized its based NeuLevel in Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking an California and the contracts between ICANN and the domain accountability to a California nonprofit corporation. injunction preventing NeuLevel registries were signed in California, from allocating global domain names. California law was applicable. In October 2001 a preliminary injunc- "The Framework for Global Electronic Commerce" The lawsuit was filed August tion was issued prohibiting (http://www.w3.org/TR/ 2001 in Los Angeles County because ICANN, the governing body for NeuLevel from allocating the domain names. NOTE-framework-970706.html) was released in July 1997 during the domain name registrars, is based in However, later in October the Clinton Administration. Its purpose California. ICANN and NeuLevel argued that a California court injunction was dropped after the plaintiffs suing NeuLevel were was to establish a policy that government should "avoid undue should not be allowed to regulate unable to post the $1.6 million continued page 8 8 WEB CURRENTS Electronic Discovery By Michael Bain As the business world becomes more reliant on computers and technology to function, so does the legal world. All kinds of business activities are increasingly being conducted over the Internet; also e-mail, instant messaging, and video-conferencing are gradually becoming common means of communication between business, government, and people. Consequently, electronic communication is vastly changing the way lawyers and their clients prepare for and try cases, particularly with respect to the legal fact-finding process of discovery. Traditionally, discovery consisted of parties serving each other with requests for documents and testimony related to a case at issue. Upon receiving a request, a party had a specific number of days to respond or produce those documents. Requested documents, which were mostly on paper, would be collected by the responding party and copies would be generated on a copy machine. The number of documents could range into the hundreds of thousands for very large cases. Those copies would then be handed over to the requesting party and, upon receipt, the requesting party would review the boxes of documents looking for valuable pieces of evidence to use at trial. In this process, the party requesting the documents would be responsible for paying for the copies, but the party providing the documents would pay for gathering the information. Today, the discovery process has become more complex. Information might be stored on paper, but more likely it is in electronic form on a network server, backup network tapes, a desktop computer, a laptop, a personal digital assistant, or even a pager or cellular phone. Even the smallest text message sent from one person to another as an instant message or e-mail could be the piece of evidence that decides a case. All of this information is discoverable, and more exists than you probably think. You may think a deleted e-mail message is gone, but it is often recorded and stored on the network at work or even somewhere on your computer where it January 2003 may still be recovered. Therefore, today, rather than thousands or hundreds of thousands of documents, discovery may lead to millions of documents, including electronic versions, being turned over. As you might imagine, gathering and reproducing electronic information can be very costly. Retrieving electronic information, especially if it involves hiring a computer forensic specialist, can cost millions of dollars. If the responding party must pay for gathering this information, it may easily be forced into bankruptcy or at least to the settlement table to avert a huge expenditure. In this way discovery may be used as a weapon against the opposing side. On the other hand, how should the requesting party be charged if all of the electronic documents can be inexpensively put onto a compact disk instead of copied to paper? Should the retrieval costs be split evenly between the parties? These are important questions to address in the preliminary phase of a lawsuit continued page 15 LA Superior Court cont. restrictions on electronic commerce" and let the private sector take the lead. The Clinton administration also privatized the management and oversight of the Internet's root server system, over which the United States had primary authority by appointing a private sector group in November 1998. This private group was named "ICANN" or "Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers" and was located in California as a non-profit corporation. It was given a two-year trial period to prove that it could successfully represent the global interest in the root server system. Of course, the development of the Internet was a global process and there was the usual wrangling by countries and businesses about who would do what. However, the establishment of ICANN settled most of this wrangling being established as a private and international organization. Governments could provide advice but it was not binding. Before the establishment of ICANN, Network Solutions was the sole provider of Internet domain names. ICANN was now responsible for establishing a process to promote competition among several domain providers. Domain registrars would develop the database infrastructure from which domain registries would sell domain names. Contracts between registrars and registries were executed by ICANN in Los Angeles, California. January 2003 WEB CURRENTS 9 Service of Process: Quick and Painless? By Michael Bain Since the development of the Internet, information has become more readily available and services more accessible, and the legal world has not missed out. Courts allow electronic filing and electronic payments, and now parties to a lawsuit may even engage in electronic discovery. However, service of process has generally been handled in person -- but, at least in part, this may be changing. New electronic legal communication firms can automate service of process or at least make it easier. In order to serve a summons, complaint, or other legal document on an individual in another municipality, state, or country, a lawyer once had to contact a process server in that individual's jurisdiction, which required paperwork and sometimes research into local laws on service of process. Now, several service of process firms operate on a national and international level through their process server networks. Most involve the serving lawyer getting in touch with them by telephone or e-mail and then faxing or e-mailing the papers to be served. The firm Standards cont. will then arrange for service of process on the individual by the local sheriff or process server for a fee. All of this could be handled over the telephone or fax; however, some firms are beginning to expand to the Internet making the process even easier. Two such firms, Serve-em.com and ABC Legal, use the Internet to simplify service. Through Internet service of process, the name or Serve-em.com address of the person to be served is entered on the website, billing information is given, the papers to be served are e-mailed, and updates on the status of service are e-mailed, telephoned in, or tracked online. These firms reduce the legal paperwork and expense incurred trying to serve an individual. The service is often affordable, costing between $50 and $200, depending on the firm, location, and deadline. Perhaps some day service of process will be fully carried out with e-mail or over the Internet, but until then firms can automate a few steps of the process as an alternative to a sometimes laborious task. The recent submission on July 12, 2002, of the "Standards for Electronic Filing Processes" to the Joint Technology Committee (JTC) of COSCA/NACM advocates electronic service of process. The Standards are currently being reviewed by the national judicial community and are currently considered to be "Proposed Standards." After review, the JTC will elevate the Standards to the final level of review, "Recommended Standards." A number of states have made requests to the JTC for a standard to govern e-filing so that it can function across state boundaries. Many will move to swiftly adopt and implement the standards. Is Georgia ready? 6. Recommendation. Finally, a standard can also be finalized as a "Recommended" standard for use by OASIS without being forwarded into the standard setting process described above. However, that standard should not be adopted for use by the courts. So what does this really mean? Yes, there are a lot of standards out there. Yes, there are a lot of organi- zations that approve standards. So which standards should judges, court administrators, and clerks of court use? More than likely, the judicial community would and should use standards that have been reviewed, reworked, and finalized by a national judicial community, such as those recommended by the Conference of Chief Justices. PLEASE RECYCLE 10 WEB CURRENTS January 2003 Adapt Your Websites for Accessibility By Sharon Evans More and more people are using the Internet because of less expensive computer equipment, school and library access, and the number of services and products now available online. One significant group is the 52 million people in the U.S. with some type of disability. To provide better service to this group, local governments are adopting website accessibility guidelines similar to the federal government's regulation Section 508. This regulation (released June 2001) requires that all federal agencies and their IT vendors provide services and products that are accessible to people with disabilities. Similar requirements are likely to become mandatory in some form at state, county, and/or city levels of government very soon. Several states -- Connecticut, Texas, Missouri, Wisconsin, New York, and New Hampshire -- have already adopted website accessibility guidelines and can provide valuable assis- tance to states now considering this move. It is important for website developers to keep in mind that the incorporation of accessibility features should not restrict creativity. Following the guidelines simply makes websites available to more users and makes information easier to find. The additional features lead to the production of websites that are accessible to people who cannot see, hear, move, or process some types of information. These accommodations are especially important to government agencies because online information must be available to all citizens despite their limitations. As well, there is a benefit to users with text-based browsers, lowend processors, slow modem connections, and no multimedia capabilities. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) has developed detailed website accessibility guidelines for web developers. In 1996, it created the Web Access Initiative (WAI) to address the wide variety of issues involved in providing Internet access to people who are disabled. The guidelines set by the WAI concentrate on three aspects of website design: 1. Using HTML to develop content and using stylesheets to set up layout and presentation. 2. Providing keyboard navigation as well as mouse navigation. 3. Providing alternate text descriptions for website images, audio, video, applets, and scripts. Brief descriptions of the WAI guidelines are listed on page 11. For detailed information, refer to the complete text of the guidelines at http://www.w3.org/TR/ WAI-WEBCONTENT/ continued page 11 Center for Digital Government: "Best of the Web" Two Georgia organizations were recognized for their outstanding web sites by the Center for Digital Government. The Georgia Department of Education's Georgia Learning Connections site won first place in the K-12 category (http://www.glc.k12.ga.us). The City of Conyers was a finalist in the Local Government category for their city information site (https://www.govhost.com/conyers-ga/). The first place winner is provided accommodations and airfare to attend the Annual Best of the Web Award Dinner and Banquet, which was held on October 10, 2002 in New York City. A complete list of the winners and other information can be found at http://www.centerdigitalgov.com/ center/bow02/ Applications and contest criteria for the 2003 Best of the Web contest will be available midMarch 2003. GA Dept. of Education's Georgia Learning Connections City of Conyers + + January 2003 WEB CURRENTS WAI Guidelines Readability Use plain backgrounds, simple layouts, and contrasting colors to improve readability. Do not abbreviate dates use April 2, 2002 instead of 4/2/02. Images and animations Include alternate text to describe the look and purpose of visuals Avoid unnecessary use of icons, graphics, and photos. Ex. Limit the use of graphics as hyperlinks. Image maps Use client-side image maps and text for hotspots. Multimedia Provide text descriptions of video Provide transcripts of audio Provide file format and file size Hypertext links Make sure text is understandable when read out of context. Ex. Avoid the use of "click here". Page organization Use CSS for consistent layout and style where possible. Ex. Don't use tables for layout. Use only for tabular data. Ex. Use H1, etc., for text headings instead of bold or italic. Graphs and charts Summarize the content or use the "longdesc" attribute Navigation Provide a text-only index or site map. Avoid moving text (scrolling) and mouseovers Scripts, applets, and plug-ins Provide alternate text in case these features are inaccessible, unsupported, or turned off. Frames Use the "noframes" element and meaningful titles Tables Make line-by-line reading sensible. Validate your site Test the site thoroughly by proofreading carefully, doublechecking for accessibility, and using variable features (images off, JavaScript disabled, keyboard only, different monitor and color settings, etc.) 11 Accessibility cont. There are numerous resources available in print and on the Internet to help website developers identify the needs of this audience and find creative ways to accommodate them as users. Of course, the Administrative Office of the Courts is also available as a resource if needed. If you have questions or comments, please contact AOC Technology at aoctechinfo@gaaoc.us Resources: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. May 1999. World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/ Quick Tips Reference Card. 11 November 2001. W3C Web Access Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI/References/Qui ckTips/ Burgstahler, Ph.D, Sheryl. Creating Video and Multimedia Products that are Accessible to People with Sensory Impairments. 14 March 2002. University of Washington. http://www.washington.edu/doit/Broch ures/Technology/vid_sensory.html State of Connecticut. CMAC Website Accessibility Committee. Universal Website Accessibility Policy for State Websites Version 4.0. 26 July 2000. http://www.cmac.state.ct.us/access/ policies/accesspolicy40.html Click onto what's happening ... wwwwwwwww.g..ggeeeooorrrggiaccooouuurrrtttsss...ooorrrggg 12 WEB CURRENTS January 2003 US AOC Provides Electronic Access to Case Files By Sharon Evans The Administrative Office of the United States Courts is providing electronic access to federal court information through Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER). The general public can request web-based or dial-up court case information for on-screen display. Bankruptcy Appeals District Information Available The PACER Service Center website provides lists of the following courts that offer PACER information on the Internet -- U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, and U.S. District Court. If a specific court is not listed, it does not offer web-based information; however, it may have direct dial-up service. The web site is located at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov The types of information found in the PACER Service Center include those listed below: Case participants including judges, attorneys, and trustees Case-related information such as cause of action, dollar demands, and nature of the suit Chronology of the dates of case events entered in the case record Claims registry Listing of new cases each day in bankruptcy court Appellate court opinions Judgments or case status Types of documents filed for cer- tain causes Non-participating courts Each type of court has a different screen display but the search process is basically the same. Service Availability The service is available days, nights, and weekends except for periodic downtime for maintenance. Cost A user fee will be charged to an account that is set up when registering for the service. A charge of $.07 per page will be assessed for webbased PACER systems, and $.60 per minute for dial-up PACER systems. Accounts are billed quarterly by mail or e-mail. However, only amounts over $10.00 in a calendar year will be billed. If over $10.00 has not been accumulated between January 1 and December 31, what has accumulated will be deleted. Payment can be made by Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover, or check. User fees can be waived if the party seeking exemption can prove that waiving the fee would relieve an unreasonable burden and promote public access to the information. How to Register Registration is available online at http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/register.html Telephone registration is available by calling (800) 676-6856 or by mail at PACER Service Center, P. O. Box 780549, San Antonio, TX 782780549. Registration is free. Logins and passwords will be issued within two weeks by mail. Both web-based and dial-up PACER systems require registration. Privacy Issues Privacy advocates across the country have expressed concern over easy public access to criminal, bankruptcy, and civil case documents. They are specifically worried about unfettered access to social security numbers, credit card numbers, and pre-trial documents. Such information could be subject to "information mining" by employers, marketers, credit suppliers, etc. Advocates do not want this information used as a source of credit verification and background checks. There is also growing concern about identity theft resulting from the proliferation of personal data on the Internet. continued page 15 January 2003 WEB CURRENTS 13 Behind the Scenes of Online Payments By Sharon Evans You've found the perfect software application, XML handbook, or Cross pen through an online vendor. You've entered your payment information and Presto! it's yours. The hardest part of your participation in the e-commerce process is deciding what to buy and which credit/debit card to use. But behind the scenes a number of electronic processes have to be successfully completed before the vendor ships your item. In addition to you and the vendor, there are several other participants involved in this e-commerce Figure 1 Vendor's Bank Account 7a. Merchant account deposits funds in vendor's bank 7b. Funds are released from issuing bank Internet Merchant Account Bank 6. Vendor issues a "capture request" to merchant account bank 2. Credit Card Interchange contacts issuing bank for transaction acceptance or decline Credit Card Interchange 1. Merchant requests authorization number through Credit Card Interchange Vendor 5. Items are delivered (if transaction is authorized) You submit payment information online You are here! Bank issues credit card to you. transaction: the "issuing bank" that issued your credit card, the Internet "merchant account bank" where the vendor has an account, and the "credit card interchange" service. Here is a brief, simplified version of what takes place between these organizations. See Figure 1. After you have pressed the "Submit" button and sent the online order, the vendor electronically requests payment authorization through a credit card interchange service1. This service requests credit card validation and funds from your issuing bank2. We won't get into what happens when the card is declined. It's not pretty! But, when the transaction is authorized, the issuing bank sets aside funds to cover the transaction3 and the vendor is notified that the transaction is accepted (or declined)4. At this point the purchased items are shipped to you5. The vendor makes a "capture request" to the merchant account bank requesting settlement of the accounts between the vendor and the issuing bank6. The merchant bank deposits the transaction amount to the vendor's bank account7a. In turn, the set aside funds are released from the issuing bank to the merchant account bank7b. Finally, the transaction will appear on your credit card statement, along with the applicable fees. Issuing Bank 3. Issuing Bank reserves funds (if accepted) to cover transaction 4. Vendor is notified that transaction is accepted (or declined) RECYCLE 14 WEB CURRENTS Electronic Information Storage The Cost-Effective Solution James McMillan Reprinted from Court Technology Bulletin January/February 2002, vol. 14 no. 1. page 4 I have noticed that one of the major arguments for the adoption of electronic document filing (e-filing) isn't often addressed. This is the need to build a compelling, cost/benefit case for the conversion from manual paper filing to electronic storage. Any conversion to new technology takes investment funding to pay for the transition and startup costs. Many courts have not been able to "make the case" to acquire this funding. This article is an attempt to make this argument for change based on economic and long-term cost factors. We all recognize that courts and the legal system are wedded to paper. We create paper documents in vast quantities, we exchange them, and we store them in some cases for as long as the paper physically exists. I'm sure that there were bankers and stock traders who also fought the change from paper to electronic records. That conversion is almost complete. But why should the legal system follow? Bottom line, I think there are three reasons why electronic document storage is better and less costly than paper systems. They are: 1. A significant reduction in information storage and handling costs. 2. Cost and risk avoidance relating to environmental, health, and safety hazards of paper documents and files. 3. Potential increased productivity due to better information retrieval and display. First, electronic documents can be stored for much less cost than paper files. The cost of the storage and operation of paper files is constantly increasing. Paper files require persons to handle and manipulate the paper. Personnel costs in government rise due to increased salaries and, more important, increased associated costs such as medical benefits and insurance costs. Handling costs equal personnel costs. The cost of construction of new courthouses (also known as paper warehouses), additions and renovations to courthouses, and other storage facilities continues to increase due to growing labor and materials costs. In 1998-99, the Census Bureau reported that state and local government spent 8.8 billion dollars on general government facilities, including courthouses. The operation of these facilities increased at a growing rate due to increased energy costs. Just ask California about that cost increase in 2001. The second argument for electronic document storage is one of health and safety. Files are often large, unwieldy heavy objects. They often must be placed or removed from high shelves. This creates opportunities for workplace injuries. Second, the U.S. Federal Courts recently reported in their newsletter The Third Branch in an article on Florida courthouses (http://www.uscourts.gov/ttb/sept01 ttb/health.html) that "(I)n two new federal courthouses, the new San Gibbons Federal Courthouse in Tampa and the new courthouse in Fort Myers, mold was brought from January 2003 the old facilities with the transfer of papers, files, and courthouse furniture." And, unfortunately, due to recent events another concern about the safety of paper documents is anthrax. Enough said. My third major argument for electronic documents relates to the potential increases in productivity due to better information entry, retrieval, and display. E-filing has already proven itself to save staff time in registering or docketing information into case management systems. With proper design of cover sheets that would accompany the paper document filings, optical character recognition (OCR) can also significantly reduce data entry. Once the documents and data are in the electronic system, everyone (who has security clearance) has access to the case file. No lost case files. This translates into savings. No longer does the staff have to move case files. Savings again. And now the court has the ability to work with the case files in ways never possible before. For example, similar motions could be automatically identified, grouped, and routed at the proper time to the proper judge. In this current time of economic slowdown it will be difficult to convince government funding bodies to invest in new, at least in the legal world, technology. Unlike business, government cannot report a return on investment. What we can do is try to spend the tax money wisely while maximizing service to the citizens and the chances that justice will be done. I hope I have given you some ideas that may help you in your efforts to develop your future e-court. If you have any questions or wish to comment on this article, please email me at jmmcmillan@ncsc.dni.us January 2003 WEB CURRENTS Electronic Discovery cont. to ensure that discovery does not become such a burden that it overshadows the real legal issue in the case. Although electronic discovery costs have not yet become a big problem in most jurisdictions, they may in the near future. No clear rule exists on how to allocate discovery costs between parties, but state and federal trial court judges have been given wide discretion in determining what is discoverable and how costs are divided. Some federal courts have made an effort to guide lawyers through a potentially expensive discovery process, placing an emphasis on pre-discovery or early-discovery conferences between the parties. The purpose of these meetings is, among other things, to determine where information is, to determine if it is in electronic or paper form, to decide whether to scan paper documents to put them into electronic form, and to discuss the possibility of sharing the costs of retrieving and reproducing the information. Deciding how to allocate costs up front can make discovery more manageable for both parties. Considering the changes occurring in discovery procedures, types of documents, and legal costs, the lawyer's role may be gradually evolving from one solely of legal counsel to more of a technological advisor. The types of computer network, e-mail, and file backup systems that a company has, and the policies it develops and implements regarding management of data, can directly impact the amount of effort required to respond to discovery. A uniform document storage policy can enable a company to respond more easily and less expensively to requests for information and documents in discovery. An intimate knowledge of a client's computer network may become a requisite for lawyers and firms in the coming years, if it is not already. 15 Technological savvy is fast becoming a distinct advantage in the legal world. The implications of these developments will become an inevitable, and probably worrisome, part of the work in Georgia's courts. The following are some important issues to be addressed regarding the court's handling of electronic documents. 1. How will the clerk retain the electronic documents? Will just putting the CD-ROM, diskette, or tape in the file be sufficient. 2. What happens when the trial court judge needs to view them or the law clerk needs to study them? Will the clerk, by necessity, finally need to print them out? 3. Should a policy be developed? How Are People Using the Internet? Checking the Weather 62% GOVERNMENT INFORMATION 48-51% Buying a Product 45% Booking Travel 38% Auction 15% "The New Face of Government -- the Portal as a Capitol Dome" e.Republic, Inc./government technology Pearson, Don. US AOC cont. In response to these concerns, criminal case documents were not made available to the public when PACER was initially launched. However, in March 2002, the Judicial Conference approved a pilot allowing 11 federal courts to provide electronic criminal case information. The issue of providing criminal case data will be revisited in September 2003. For other court case documents personal data identifiers such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, account numbers, and names of minor children will be altered before online publication. Hard copy public documents will be kept intact and available as before. Do's & Don'ts for Computer Laptops More than one million laptops are stolen in 2001, one out of every 14. To prevent computer theft: Never leave your computer visible in your car. Never check your computer as baggage. Never leave your computer unattended in a hotel room unless it's properly secured. Make sure your laptop has contact information on the carrying case or bottom of the laptop. When checking into a hotel, do not let hotel staff take your laptop to your room. Promptly report the theft of a laptop to the local police department. Don't leave a laptop in a car trunk overnight or for long periods of time. In cold weather, condensation can form and damage it. In warm weather, high temperatures can also damage hard drives. LOOKING AHEAD Online Technology Your letters, articles, and requests for information on issues in web development, administrative technology, or -- you name it. Web Currents Administrative Office of the Courts 244 Washington Street, S.W., Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30334-5900 GREG ARNOLD Assistant Director Research and Technology SHARON EVANS Technical Editor ASHLEY G. STOLLAR Graphic Design BRIAN COLLINS Webmaster MICHAEL BAIN Technical Writer