HCI- Case Study Need a review on the attached case study in next 8 hours 100% plagiarism free The assignment requires a 4-6 page review, not including cove

HCI- Case Study Need a review on the attached case study in next 8 hours 100% plagiarism free
The assignment requires a 4-6 page review, not including cove

Click here to Order a Custom answer to this Question from our writers. It’s fast and plagiarism-free.

Need a review on the attached case study in next 8 hours 100% plagiarism free

The assignment requires a 4-6 page review, not including cover page, abstract, and a reference page, of the business use case you have been assigned.Students who have last names begin with:

Answer the following questions:

  • Summarize the case study
  • Identify the study method used and why it was appropriate
  • Explore some of the qualitative or quantitative methods gathered.
  • Answer these two additional questions:
  • How would you conduct the study any differently?
  • Given the nature in the advance of technology, how do you foresee technology changing the way studies such as these are conducted in the future?

E N S U R I N G A C C E S S I B I L I T Y A N D
S E C T I O N 5 0 8 C O M P L I A N C E F O R
T H E R E C O V E R Y . G O V W E B S I T E
Jonathan Lazar, Dan Green, Tina Fuchs, Alice Siempelkamp, Michael Wood

I. Introduction

II. User-centered design approach

III. Meeting Compliance of the Section 508 Regulations: specifi c coding approaches

IV. Specifi c Features of Recovery.gov where accessibility techniques were implemented

V. 508 Compliance Testing Process and Tools

VI. The Recovery.gov 2.0 launch (9/28/2009)

VII. Ongoing accessibility

I. Introduction

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (the Act) became law on February 17, 2009
with the intention of infusing $787 billion into the United States economy to create jobs and
improve economic conditions. The Act (informally known as “the Stimulus Bill”) established
an independent board, the Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board, to oversee the
spending and detect, mitigate, and minimize any waste, fraud, or abuse. While the Act was
politically sensitive, the Recovery and Transparency Board (the Board) is non-partisan, and
does not decide who gets funding. The Board is chaired by Earl Devaney and is made up of
12 Inspectors General from various federal agencies (http://www.recovery.gov/About/board/
Pages/BoardMembers.aspx).

The law required the Board to establish a user-friendly website, Recovery.gov, to provide
the public with information on the progress of the Recovery effort. There were many signifi –
cant challenges in building and maintaining such a website, including simplifying complex
information for a broad audience, making government statistics available in an interesting
manner, providing access to the projects and awards in local areas through maps, charts, and
graphs, and allowing for reporting of fraud, waste, and abuse right on the site. In addition,
the Act laid out very specifi c requirements that infl uenced the design of Recovery.gov, includ-
ing that the site had to provide “relevant economic, fi nancial, grant, and contract informa-
tion,” “provide a link to estimates of the jobs sustained or created by the Act,” and “provide
a means for the public to give feedback.”

Initially, the General Services Administration and Offi ce of Management and Budget
created a site, Recovery.gov 1.0, which launched on February 17, 2009, the day the Act was

CS14.indd 1CS14.indd 1 21/06/11 3:22 PM21/06/11 3:22 PM

E N S U R I N G A C C E S S I B I L I T Y A N D S E C T I O N 5 0 8
2

signed into law. However, to meet the stakeholders’ demand for richer data, geospatial fea-
tures, and web 2.0 functionality, the Board made the commitment to rebuild and redesign the
site. In July, 2009, the redesign and rebuilding process began. Ten weeks later on September
28, 2009 Recovery.gov 2.0 was launched. One month later, on October 30, 2009, data on
130,000 Recovery awards was displayed in charts, graphs, and geospatial maps. The site
expanded the 2500 data points on Recovery 1.0 to approximately 250,000 and increased the
number of pages from 250 to more than 90,000. In addition to the recipients of Recovery
funds reporting every quarter, Recovery.gov 2.0 displays weekly fi nancial reports for the
28 federal agencies administering funds, as well as all the fi ndings issued by 29 Inspectors
General who have oversight of those funds.

Recovery.gov 2.0 uses simple elegant design, yet incorporates numerous web features
that internet users expect: videos, advanced geospatial capabilities, downloadable data,
and social media components, such as Flickr, Facebook, and Twitter. All this functionality
expands the ability of the American taxpayers to track Recovery funds – how and where they
are spent. Charts, graphs, and maps, which are continually enhanced and refi ned – offer both
telescopic and microscopic views of Recovery projects across the country, from a national
overview down to specifi c zip codes.

The goal was transparency at a scale not seen before in the federal government.
To meet the challenge of displaying information from thousands of Recovery fund recipi-

ents, and providing simple overviews of how money was distributed and spent, the Board
arranged extensive focus groups to take the public’s pulse and met with a broad group of
stakeholders to determine their interests and needs. This ranged from the public, to States,
Congress and the Administration.

A major goal for Recovery.gov was meeting the requirement that the site be accessible
to those with disabilities, such as visual, hearing, and motor impairments. Since the site is
for the general public there was a signifi cant commitment by the Board to ensure the fullest
access possible. Generally, Section 508 requires that individuals with disabilities who seek
information or services from a federal agency have access comparable to that provided to
the public who do not have disabilities (see www.section508.gov for more information).
During the period of site development, we were aware that the Section 508 guidelines
were undergoing review (known as the “508 Refresh”), but draft guidelines had not been
published or approved, so the legal requirement for Recovery.gov was to meet existing
regulations. When new regulations are released, the entire site will be re-evaluated for
compliance.

After an intensive process to determine specifi c requirements, prototypes of Recovery.
gov 2.0 were created using best practices for design, usability, and accessibility. At a broad
level, three main approaches were used to ensure compliance with Section 508:

• Testing with individual users, including those with perceptual and motor impairments
to supplement automated evaluation, is a major design requirement in ensuring 508
compliance

• Routine testing for compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, including test-
ing of contrast and color schemes, are done quarterly using Watchfi re and Jaws to check
the accuracy and quality of the content and navigation

• Providing an online feedback loop, listening to customers, and rapidly responding to acces-
sibility problems, is another reason for the site’s successful achievement of accessibility

CS14.indd 2CS14.indd 2 21/06/11 3:22 PM21/06/11 3:22 PM

I I . U S E R – C E N T E R E D D E S I G N A P P R O A C H
3

II. User-centered design approach

Focus Groups (Exploratory/Discovery)
During the 10 week period that the design and development processes were moving forward,
ten two-hour focus groups were convened in fi ve cities – Boston, Dayton, Dallas, Richmond,
and Sacramento – with 105 participants representing a broad range of education and income
levels, ethnicities, and physical abilities/disabilities. The focus group research was conducted
from August 27 through September 3, 2009 using paper prototypes of the redesigned site.
The information gathered from these focus groups helped determine the optimal layout,
design, and nomenclature for the site, and provided recommendations to streamline technical
development efforts. Of the 105 participants, the number with disabilities was:

• Low vision: 4
• Hearing impaired: 3
• Motor impaired: 5

The objective of this outreach effort was twofold. First, to determine what information
was relevant to specifi c communities, as well as the public at large. And second, how to
present the massive amount of data in a manner that was visually appealing and, at the same
time, meaningful to a diverse user population. For instance, participants were most interested
in information on jobs and how to save their houses from foreclosure. They didn’t just want
information about the number of jobs saved, they wanted specifi c information about how to
apply for jobs. While the law specifi cally stated that Recovery.gov should provide informa-
tion on jobs as it was possible to do so, the law made no reference to mortgages. Participants
in the focus groups also pointed out that they wanted information listed by topic not by the
federal agency that managed a particular fi eld. All of these fi ndings infl uenced the later design
of Recovery.gov 2.0.

Reference:
http://www.recovery.gov/About/Documents/Focus_Group_Discovery_and_Usability_
Research_Findings.pdf

Expert Panel Participation
When the design concepts and overall strategies for Recovery.gov 2.0 were complete, they
were presented to an expert panel convened by the Board. The meeting on September 9,
2009 included Edward Tufte of Yale University, who led the data visualization discussion;
Dr. Ben Shneiderman of the University of Maryland, who led the general usability discus-
sion; Jack Dangermond of ESRI, who spoke about geospatial solutions for representing
data; and Dr. Jonathan Lazar of Towson University, who shared his expertise on 508
compliance. Many of the ideas and recommendations from the panel strongly infl uenced
the fi nal design.

Usability Testing
A signifi cant goal for Recovery.gov 2.0 was the development of data-rich and visually
appealing presentations while ensuring that the information was compatible and accessible
to individuals with disabilities using assistive technologies. Great emphasis was placed on

CS14.indd 3CS14.indd 3 21/06/11 3:22 PM21/06/11 3:22 PM

E N S U R I N G A C C E S S I B I L I T Y A N D S E C T I O N 5 0 8
4

Section 508 coding standards. Nonetheless, fi rst-hand engagement using assistive technol-
ogy to explore the website was needed to validate both usability and accessibility.

In addition to the focus groups and expert panel meetings, 72 remote one-on-one inter-
views were conducted with average/interested citizens, potential and current funding recipi-
ents, federal agencies, watchdog groups, the press, academia/NGOs, state/local government
and Indian Tribes across 50 states. Representation also included bilingual households and
Americans with disabilities. Remote testing was conducted through GoToMeeting.com
(a screen-sharing tool), which allowed the usability testers to monitor participants’ cursor
movements.

When the remote testing was completed, a formal usability critique of design, layout,
navigation, functionality, content, and terminology was executed to determine if the content
and organization of Recovery 2.0 was intuitive and easily identifi able. Similarities and dif-
ferences among key audiences were assessed and ways to enhance the user experience were
identifi ed.

Compliance with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act was also evaluated with partici-
pants who had disability types of Visual (blindness and low vision), Hearing, Motor (inability
to use a mouse; slow response time, and limited fi ne motor control). Testing was conducted
with 11 participants:

• Blind: 3
• These were conducted in person to evaluate various screen reader software, including

Jaws v.9, Jaws v.10
• Low vision: 5 (often using ZoomText)
• Hearing impaired: 1
• Motor impaired: 2

The percentage of participants with impairments was based on the 2005 U.S. Census
report—Selected Disability Measures by Selected Age Groups, which can be found at
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/disability/sipp/disable05.html

Usability testing took place from October 5 through October 20, 2009 so participants
had the opportunity to review the site after the launch on September 28, 2009 and after
home-page enhancements and new pages created for the release of Recipient Reported Data
were posted on October 15, 2009. While it would have been ideal to do usability testing
before the site launch on September 28, the timeline did not allow us to do so.

Reference:
http://www.recovery.gov/About/Documents/Focus_Group_Discovery_and_Usability_
Research_Findings.pdf

Several weeks before the launch of Recovery.gov 2.0, the development team sought out
the services of the Department of Defense Computer Accommodations Technology Evaluation
Center (CAPTEC). Located at the Pentagon, the center provides evaluations and in-person
demonstrations of assistive technologies to federal agencies.

Testing on Recovery.gov 2.0 began with the screen-reader tool Jaws (http://www.
freedomscientifi c.com/products/fs/jaws-product-page.asp) and a touch keyboard with Braille
display capabilities. To our delight, the information on the site was “read” perfectly; the site
was easily maneuverable using the outline features of the HTML code. A few table header
inconsistencies were noted which were corrected prior to the launch.

CS14.indd 4CS14.indd 4 21/06/11 3:22 PM21/06/11 3:22 PM

5
I I I . M E E T I N G C O M P L I A N C E O F T H E S E C T I O N 5 0 8

Other assistive technologies available to test website usability included a head-pointer
device frequently used by individuals with dexterity limitations, such as hand movement or
quadriplegia. This head- mounted device equipped with an infra-red pointer is targeted at a
screen and is used to maneuver the website in place of a traditional mouse. Using this device,
the CAPTEC representative was easily able to navigate to the large hyperlink buttons and tabs.

The CAPTEC center resources provided the development team with the unique oppor-
tunity to conduct a spot check of the website using a wide array of different assistive tech-
nologies all available in one location. As a result, the team gained insights on how to further
improve usability and accessibility, as well as a greater appreciation for how the website
appears to blind, hearing impaired, or physically challenged individuals.

III. Meeting Compliance of the Section 508
Regulations: specifi c coding approaches

The following programming guidelines (http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction�
Content&ID=12#Web) and strategies were used on Recovery.gov 2.0 to comply with Sec-
tion 508.

Web-based Intranet and Internet Information and Applications (1194.22)

(a) A text equivalent for every non-text element shall be provided (e.g., via “alt”, “longdesc”,
or in element content).
• This includes: images, graphical representations of text (including symbols), image

map regions, animations (e.g., animated GIFs), applets and programmatic objects,
ASCII art, frames, scripts, images used as list bullets, spacers, graphical buttons,
sounds (played with or without user interaction), stand-alone audio fi les, audio tracks
of video, and video.
Reference: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CORE-TECHS/#text-equivalent/
Example Code: <img src=”image.jpg” alt=”description of your image” />

• Missing alt attributes can be detected manually or with automated scanning software.
(Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools: http://www.w3.org/WAI/RC/tools/complete)

Our strategy: Recovery.gov detected and fi xed these instances automatically using
Watchfi re.

(b) Equivalent alternatives for any multimedia presentation shall be synchronized with the
presentation.
• Captions are on-screen text descriptions that display a video product’s dialogue, iden-

tify speakers, and describe other relevant sounds that are otherwise inaccessible to
people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Captions are synchronized with the video
image so that viewers have equivalent access to the content that is originally presented
in sound, regardless of whether they receive that content via audio or text. Captions
are either open or closed. Open captions always are in view and cannot be turned off,
whereas closed captions can be turned on and off by the viewer.

• For users who are unable to play the video, equivalent content should be available in
formats such as plain text or HTML that do not require additional plug-ins to view.

CS14.indd 5CS14.indd 5 21/06/11 3:22 PM21/06/11 3:22 PM

E N S U R I N G A C C E S S I B I L I T Y A N D S E C T I O N 5 0 8
6

Our strategy: Videos and multimedia on Recovery.gov are posted with synchro-
nized closed- captioning where relevant.

(c) Web pages shall be designed so that all information conveyed with color is also available
without color, for example from context or markup.
• For example, links are marked up with underlines as well as color.
• Suffi cient contrast between foreground and background colors helps visually impaired

users distinguish content easier. Color schemes that prevent colorblind users (protano-
pia, deutanopia, tritanopia, etc.) from visualizing content are avoided.

Our strategy: The following online tools are used to detect color and contrast
issues:

http://juicystudio.com/services/luminositycontrastratio.php
http://colorfi lter.wickline.org/

Pages are also viewed in black and white to aide in detecting contrast issues.
(d) Documents shall be organized so they are readable without requiring an associated style

sheet.
• Content is purposefully marked up using semantic HTML (e.g., headers, paragraphs,

lists, etc . . .) that denotes meaning and logical divisions. All browsing tools can recog-
nize semantic markup without the presentation and behavior layers that are sometimes
absent or misinterpreted by assistive technology browsers. This benefi ts search engine
optimization as well.

• Intelligent organization of content and navigation is imperative especially for users
who rely on assistive technologies. Best practices include intuitive content structure,
logical placement of navigational elements, techniques for non-conventional naviga-
tion (without mouse, keyboard, etc.) and a means of skipping repetitive links.

Our strategy: Firefox’s web developer toolbar was used to easily disable style
sheets and allow confi rmation of page readability without associated styles.

(e) Redundant text links shall be provided for each active region of a server-side image map.
Our strategy: No server-side image maps are used on Recovery.gov.

(f) Client-side image maps shall be provided instead of server-side image maps except where
the regions cannot be defi ned with an available geometric shape

Our strategy: Client-side image maps with proper alt attributes to describe linkable
areas are used on Recovery.gov.

(g) Row and column headers shall be identifi ed for data tables.
• Row and Column Headers are designated for data tables using <th>. The code exam-

ple below show a general implementation:
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope=“col”>Name</th>
<th scope=“col”>Age</th>
<th scope=“col”>Birthday</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>

CS14.indd 6CS14.indd 6 21/06/11 3:22 PM21/06/11 3:22 PM

7
I I I . M E E T I N G C O M P L I A N C E O F T H E S E C T I O N 5 0 8

<th scope=“row”>Jackie</th>
<td>5</td>
<td>April 5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope=“row”>Beth</th>
<td>8</td>
<td>January 14</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Reference: http://www.webaim.org/techniques/tables/data.php#th

Our strategy: Watchfi re scans and manual review are used to identify instances of
tables that are used for data. Data tables are manually reviewed for proper markup.

(h) Markup shall be used to associate data cells and header cells for data tables that have two
or more logical levels of row or column headers.
• <thead>, <tfoot>, and <tbody> are used to group rows logically.
• The scope attribute is used on simple data tables. The scope attribute tells the browser

and screen reader that everything under the column is related to the header at the top,
and everything to the right of the row header is related to that header.
<table>
<thead>
<tr>
<th scope=“col”>Name</th>
<th scope=“col”>Age</th>
<th scope=“col”>Birthday</th>
</tr>
</thead>
<tbody>
<tr>
<th scope=“row”>Jackie</th>
<td>5</td>
<td>April 5</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<th scope=“row”>Beth</th>
<td>8</td>
<td>January 14</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Reference: http://www.webaim.org/techniques/tables/data.php#headers

Our strategy: Watchfi re scans and manual review are used to identify instances of
tables that are used for data. Data tables are manually reviewed for proper markup.

CS14.indd 7CS14.indd 7 21/06/11 3:22 PM21/06/11 3:22 PM

E N S U R I N G A C C E S S I B I L I T Y A N D S E C T I O N 5 0 8
8

(i) Frames shall be titled with text that facilitates frame identifi cation and navigation.
• Correct document types on a page that uses frames: <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC

“-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Frameset//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/frameset.
dtd”>

• Example of assigning meaningful frame name and title to each frame:
<frame src=“menu.html” title=“Navigation menu” name=“menu”>

• All pages that are part of a frameset must have a <title>
• <noframes> content is included for older browsers which do not support frames.

Reference: http://www.webaim.org/techniques/frames/#accessibility

Our strategy: Watchfi re scans and manual review are used to identify instances of iframes.
All iframes are manually reviewed for proper markup.

IFrames
• Iframe elements are required to contain element content. Alternative content should be

placed between the iframe tags for browsers that don’t support iframes.
• Setting scrolling�“no” is avoided to disable the display of scroll bars. Setting

scrolling�“auto” is done to allow accessibility for users who enlarge fonts and other page
elements.

• Example code:
<iframe src�“webpage.htm” width=“40px” height=“80px” title=“Iframe Content”>
<p>If you can see this text, your browser does not support iframes.
<a href=“webpage.htm”>View the content of this inline frame</a> within your browser.
</p>
</iframe>

Reference: http://www.webaim.org/techniques/frames/#iframe

(j) Pages shall be designed to avoid causing the screen to fl icker with a frequency greater
than 2 Hz and lower than 55 Hz.
• Elements that fl icker between the rate of 2 Hz and 55 Hz may cause seizures in indi-

viduals that have photosensitive epilepsy.
• Elements that move may be diffi cult to view for individuals that use screen magnifying

techniques.
Our strategy: Recovery.gov designs all animated content to avoid fl ashing or rapid

transitions between light and dark background colors. Watchfi re is used to scan for tech-
nologies that have potential to fl icker. Instances are manually reviewed to see if fl ickering
exists. Photosensitive Epilepsy Analysis Tool (PEAT) available at http://trace.wisc.edu/
peat/ is also used for animation testing. Non compliant html tags such as <blink> and
<marquee> are not used on Recovery.gov.

(k) A text-only page, with equivalent information or functionality, shall be provided to make
a web site comply with the provisions of this part, when compliance cannot be accom-
plished in any other way. The content of the text-only page shall be updated whenever
the primary page changes.
• Non-html content (fl ash, dynamic/script generated, etc . . . ) is also made available

for users who are unable access this information. Equivalent content is available in
formats such as plain text or HTML that do not require additional plug-ins to view.

CS14.indd 8CS14.indd 8 21/06/11 3:22 PM21/06/11 3:22 PM

9
I I I . M E E T I N G C O M P L I A N C E O F T H E S E C T I O N 5 0 8

• For Example: Flash driven interface that displays data or information dynamically
will also have equivalent information displayed as a text/HTML version. This can be
presented inline or as a link to the alternative content.

Our strategy: Non-html content (fl ash, dynamic/script generated, etc . . . ) is also
made available for users who are unable access this information. Equivalent content is
available in formats such as plain text or HTML that do not require additional plug-
ins to view.

(l) When pages utilize scripting languages to display content, or to create interface elements,
the information provided by the script shall be identifi ed with functional text that can be
read by assistive technology.
• Pages are usable when scripts, applets, or other programmatic objects are turned off or

not supported. If this is not possible, provide equivalent information on an alternative
accessible page.
Reference: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#tech-scripts

• <noscript> tags are provided where relevant and allow for alternative content if scripts
are not enabled or supported.

• Avoid using “javascript:” as a link target. Instead, assign event handlers that degrade
gracefully if JavaScript is unavailable

Code Example 1:
<a href=“page.html” onclick=“myFunction(); return false;”>click here</a>

Code Example 2:
Unobtrusive methods that assign event handlers to objects once the DOM element has
loaded.
<a id=“myLink” href=“page.html”>click here</a>
<script type=“text/javascript”>
document.getElementById(“myLink”).onmouseover=function() {
myFunction();
return false;
</script>
Our strategy: Watchfi re scans and manual review are used to identify instances where
scripting is used to display content. These instances are manually reviewed for readability
with assistive technology.

(m) When a web page requires that an applet, plug-in or other application be present on the
client system to interpret page content, the page must provide a link to a plug-in or applet
that complies with §1194.21(a) through (l).
• For example, if fl ash is used on a page, the following link will also be available on the

page: <a href�“http://get.adobe.com/fl ashplayer/”>Adobe&reg; Flash Player</a>
Our strategy: Recovery.gov provides links in the footer for all plug-ins used on the site.

(n) When electronic forms are designed to be completed online, the form shall allow people
using assistive technology to access the information, fi eld elements, and functionality
required for completion and submission of the form, including all directions and cues.
• Each form element has an associated label
• The label’s “for” attribute is populated with the associated form element id.
• Place form fi eld labels/prompts prior to form fi elds

CS14.indd 9CS14.indd 9 21/06/11 3:22 PM21/06/11 3:22 PM

E N S U R I N G A C C E S S I B I L I T Y A N D S E C T I O N 5 0 8
10

• Use of title attributes within the HTML code for a form fi eld
Example:
<form>
<label for=“email”>Email Address:</label>
<input type=“text” name=“email” id=“email” title=“email address” />
</form>
Our strategy: Watchfi re scans and manual review are used to identify form elements for
appropriate markup and functionality.

(o) A method shall be provided that permits users to skip repetitive navigation links.
• Skip navigation links are placed below the <body> and should be the fi rst links on the

page.
• Example Code: <a href=“#content”>skip navigation</a>
• Anchor is placed before the start of the main body of text: <a name=“content”></a>
• This can be hidden from view with css, but do not use visibility:hidden or display:none.

These will make the content unreadable by screen readers.
Example HTML Code:
<a class=“hiddenStructure” href=“#content”>skip navigation</a>
Example CSS Code:
hiddenStructure {

display: block;
background: transparent;
background-image: none;
border: none;
height: 1px;
overfl ow: hidden;
padding: 0;
margin: -1px 0 0 -1px;
width: 1px;
position: absolute;

Our strategy: each web page on Recovery.gov includes skip navigation.
(p) When a timed response is required, the user shall be alerted and given suffi cient time to

indicate more time is required.
• Ensure that moving, blinking, scrolling, or auto-updating objects or pages may be

paused or stopped.

Reference: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/#gl-movement

Our strategy: No responses on Recovery.gov are timed.

Video or Multimedia Products (1194.24)

(c) All training and informational video and multimedia productions–regardless of format–
that contain speech or other audio information necessary for the comprehension of the
content, shall be open or closed captioned.

Reference: http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=12#Video

Our strategy: Flash-based videos provide synchronized closed captioning

CS14.indd 10CS14.indd 10 21/06/11 3:22 PM21/06/11 3:22 PM

11
I I I . M E E T I N G C O M P L I A N C E O F …

Place your order now for a similar assignment and have exceptional work written by one of our experts, guaranteeing you an A result.

Need an Essay Written?

This sample is available to anyone. If you want a unique paper order it from one of our professional writers.

Get help with your academic paper right away

Quality & Timely Delivery

Free Editing & Plagiarism Check

Security, Privacy & Confidentiality