- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 15:57:07 +0100
- To: Scott Hollier <scott@hollier.info>, RQTF <public-rqtf@w3.org>
On 23/11/2017 14:11, Scott Hollier wrote: > To Shadi > > I think we're in furious agreement here! Very happy to make sure your paper is referenced. > > First though is anyone able to help me get the work on a wiki? Sure. Where is it supposed to go on the wiki? As new page on the RQTF wiki or as sub-page of the already existing WoT page (on the APA wiki)? - https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/wiki/Web_of_Things Best, Shadi > Thank you > > Scott. > > > Dr Scott Hollier > Digital Access Specialist > Mobile: +61 (0)430 351 909 > Web: www.hollier.info > > Technology for everyone > > Keep up-to-date with digital access news – follow @scotthollier on Twitter or e-mail newsletter@hollier.info with ‘subscribe’ in the subject line. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org] > Sent: Thursday, 23 November 2017 4:28 PM > To: Scott Hollier <scott@hollier.info>; RQTF <public-rqtf@w3.org> > Subject: Re: Action item - web of things literature summary > > Hi Scott, > > This is a peer-reviewed paper, like your references to your own work. > Seems appropriate to reference it among this literature collection. > > Best, > Shadi > > > On 23/11/2017 00:37, Scott Hollier wrote: >> To Shadi >> >> Thanks for that. My initial thinking was that it may be odd referencing W3C work to a W3C audience as this draft is workshopped by a W3C task force who are already familiar with it, but it’s a good point that if its been published in the literature it should be on the list. Once it's on a wiki somewhere we can make sure it's added in as a reference to the W3C WoT bullet points at the end. >> >> Scott. >> >> >> Dr Scott Hollier >> Digital Access Specialist >> Mobile: +61 (0)430 351 909 >> Web: www.hollier.info >> >> Technology for everyone >> >> Keep up-to-date with digital access news – follow @scotthollier on Twitter or e-mail newsletter@hollier.info with ‘subscribe’ in the subject line. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org] >> Sent: Wednesday, 22 November 2017 9:48 PM >> To: Scott Hollier <scott@hollier.info>; RQTF <public-rqtf@w3.org> >> Subject: Re: Action item - web of things literature summary >> >> Looks good Scott! >> >> No reference to the WoT paper? >> - https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/107831 >> >> Best, >> Shadi >> >> >> On 22/11/2017 10:19, Scott Hollier wrote: >>> To the RQTF >>> >>> Hope TPAC went well! >>> >>> I’ve completed the action item from the last meeting and include a >>> summary of the Web of Things literature review below. Much of the >>> work is based on my Internet of Things report but significantly >>> condensed with a greater focus on research and implications. >>> >>> I haven’t put in any specific recommendations as yet so that others >>> have a chance to contribute literature before they are progressed. >>> If someone is able ot find a home for it on a wiki somewhere it’d be great. >>> Content follows. >>> >>> Scott. >>> >>> Web of Things and access implications >>> >>> >>> 1.Introduction >>> >>> The significance of the Web of Things can be highlighted by its rapid >>> growth. With an estimated 8.4 billion devices connected online by >>> the end of 2017 – up 31 per cent in 2016 and growing to an estimated >>> 20.4 billion devices by 2020 (Gartner, 2017). this document is >>> designed to consider research and implications in relation to its >>> access for people with disability >>> >>> >>> 2.Reasons for Web of Things popularity >>> >>> Connectivity >>> >>> Increased connectivity options such as fixed, wireless and mobile >>> broadband make it easier for us to engage with Web of Things devices >>> anywhere, anytime. Examples include in our homes, cars and even >>> clothing (G3ICT, 2015). >>> >>> Specific environmental information >>> >>> Specific information from our environment can include broad >>> information such as the current weather, specific control over the >>> home such as changing a connected light or specific individualised >>> data collected from a smart hairbrush (Bradshaw & Waters, 2017). >>> >>> Affordability. >>> >>> The low buy-in price of the Web of Things makes it relatively >>> affordable to implement its benefits This includes cheap devices such >>> as the Arduino (Cornel, 2015) and the Raspberry Pi range of devices >>> (Traeg, >>> 2015) which can use sensors and actuators to provide monitoring and >>> adjustment of devices such as adjusting the temperature of a heater. >>> In addition, the ubiquitous presence of smartphones as a >>> consumer-friendly method of interaction provides an affordable method >>> of engagement. The recent uptake of digital assistants also provides >>> affordable mechanisms for Web of Things engagement. >>> >>> Ease of interaction >>> >>> The conversational nature of digital assistants and associated >>> smarttspeakers has evolved to a point where it is possible to provide >>> commands in a similar way to typical human interaction (Mitchell, >>> 2016; Dores, Reis, & Vasco Lopes, 2014). As a result, it is now much >>> easier to engage with devices which in turn can monitor or change our >>> environment in real-time with relative ease. >>> >>> >>> 3.Benefits and Issues >>> >>> The broad benefits of the Web of Things for consumers can be placed >>> into six categories (Borne, 2014)(Hollier, et. al., 2017) as follows: >>> >>> §Tracking behaviour for real-time marketing: the ability to quickly >>> assess and benefit from, the target market. For example, if our >>> connected devices determined it was raining in our current GPS >>> location, advertisements relating to umbrellas and information on the >>> nearest store could be provided so that we could respond to the >>> situation in real-time. >>> >>> §Enhanced situational awareness: the ability to understand and make >>> changes to our real-time environment. For example, features such as >>> updates on traffic based on movement and GPS sensors in cars and >>> smartphones allow us to take a quieter route home from work. >>> >>> §Sensor-driven decision analytics: the ability to use big data to >>> record lots of information at once which can then be analysed. For >>> example, information collected from telescopes analysing space >>> phenomenon (Lenz, Meisen, Pomp, & Jeschke, 2016). >>> >>> §Process optimisation: For example, the use of sensors to monitor the >>> speech rhythm, pitch and tone of a lecturer to determine the optimal >>> requirement for student engagement (Heng, Yi, & Zhong, 2011). >>> >>> §Optimised resource consumption: the ability for an electrical >>> appliance to complete a task based on its ability to determine the >>> optimal point at which the costs are cheapest. For example, a smart >>> washing machine assessing the cost of power and water. >>> >>> §Instantaneous control and response in complex autonomous systems: >>> For example, a series of sensors monitoring different aspects of a >>> patient in a hospital, adjusting medication and treatment in >>> real-time as sensors assess data sent and received from each other (Chiong, 2017). >>> >>> Issues >>> >>> The primary issues include: >>> >>> ·Privacy: with digital assistants always listening for the activation >>> word, such devices can potentially monitor our environment without >>> permission leading to debates between the benefits of such devices >>> and the trade-off required in terms of privacy implications (Bradshaw >>> & Waters, 2017). Developers in privacy protections are recommended to >>> be proactive and preventative rather than reactive and remedial >>> (Weinberg, Milne, Andonova, & Hajjat, 2015). >>> >>> ·Security, generally considered a related issue to privacy (Bian et >>> al., 2016). With smartphones constantly broadcasting our GPS location >>> to a variety of sources – including the operating system >>> manufacturers, telecommunications providers and others depending on >>> smartphone permissions – there is significant concern about who has >>> access to this data and how it is being used (Lin & Bergmann, 2016). >>> Furthermore, most digital assistant interactions are not restricted >>> to personal use meaning that potentially anyone could interact with >>> them for malicious purposes such as adjusting the temperature of a >>> refrigerator to damage its contents. Furthermore, it is unlikely that >>> most consumers would have the technical knowledge to ensure their environment is secure. >>> (Skarzauskiene & Kalinauskas, 2012; Weber, 2010). >>> >>> ·Interoperability: most current solutions are ecosystem-specific >>> meaning that typical Web of Things components are limited as to what >>> device they can connect. This places unnecessary restrictions on >>> manufacturers which affects the ease in which solutions can be >>> implemented, raises costs due to manufacturers having to make >>> multiple versions of the same product for different digital >>> ecosystems, and reduces consumer choice (Zhao & Qi, 2014; Lin & Bergmann, 2016). >>> >>> >>> 4.Disability-related implications >>> >>> >>> 4.1.Consumer engagement >>> >>> There are two main benefits to the web of things for people with >>> disabilities: its use as an assistive technology and the power of >>> connectivity (Hollier et. Al., 2017). While the use of the term >>> ‘assistive technology’ is generally used to describe specific >>> hardware and software that provides access to information and >>> communications technologies for people with disabilities, the fact >>> that such technologies have the capacity to provide assistance based >>> on human limitations suggests that Web of Things is, in principle, a >>> form of AT in itself (Hennig, 2016). >>> >>> The literature points to the importance of connectivity through the >>> use of connected sensor and devices in a number of different >>> scenarios that can support people with disabilities. >>> >>> [NOTE: the remainder of this document is an exert from them Hollier, >>> et. Al (2017) report and is used with permission] >>> >>> The connectivity of sensors and actuators to provide >>> disability-specific monitoring – this can lead to significant >>> improvements to the health and well-being of people with disabilities. >>> An example of this is highlighted in a project created by AT&T and >>> Premorbid in which a wirelessly connected wheelchair has the ability >>> to increase user independence and freedom – the concept uses Web of >>> Things to easily monitor the wheelchair for comfort, performance, >>> maintenance requirements and location, with adjustments made in real-time (AT&T, 2015). >>> >>> A second example is the ability to assist people with disabilities in >>> the achievement of everyday tasks independently such as going shopping. >>> One example focuses on a system used to help a group of vision >>> impaired people to find their way in a store. The store’s RFID system >>> used software to guide the vision impaired people and assist them >>> with scanning products to determine the relevant item (Domingo, 2011). >>> Another retail example is a pilot system developed to assist >>> wheelchair users to interact with shopping items placed beyond their >>> arm’s length – with the help of augmented reality, Web of Things and >>> RFID technologies, this allowed the user to digitally interact with >>> the physical items on the shelf (Rashid et al., 2016). >>> >>> However, the primary focus of research in this area relates >>> toe-health, particularly in relation to monitoring the health of the >>> ageing population (G3ICT, 2015)and outpatient medical needs. The >>> focus in this regard is on providing proactive support to people with >>> medical conditions and potentially extending both their quality and >>> length of life (Dores et al., 2014). >>> >>> Examples of e-health include the ability to provide real-time >>> monitoring of the health of seniors in aged care facilities based on >>> an intelligent monitoring system. This includes the use of sensors >>> and actuators to monitor temperature, and assess vital signs such as >>> heart rate and movement. While care givers are able to respond >>> immediately to any adverse change in conditions, seniors also have >>> the ability to get attention if they are in distress (Huang, 2013). >>> >>> Another example has been applied to tracking patients in >>> e-health/telehealth applications to monitor patients once they are >>> discharged (Chiong, 2017). A point of particular interest is that >>> while the monitoring system is similar to the aged care example, the >>> implementation of the model infers that medical staff are able to >>> provide improved individual support to outpatients based on Web of >>> Things feedback such as distance travelled, temperatures in their >>> location, and food intake. As such, the non-intrusive sensors are >>> able to assess if outpatients are following the prescribed treatment >>> and, in addition, identify key factors that may have an impact on >>> their health based on lifestyle patterns. >>> >>> In all these examples, the use of Web of Things data is used in a >>> largely passive way, either without the individual’s specific >>> awareness in the case of e-health or collated to assist in user >>> choice such as the shopping example. However, the broader benefit of >>> Web of Things for people with disabilities comes in the ability to >>> assess data based on their own needs in their own way and, in this >>> regard, it is necessary to review the applicability of the Web of >>> Things user interface as it relates to people with disabilities in the consumer space. >>> >>> >>> 4.2.Consumer-based Internet of Things and accessibility >>> >>> There are essentially three types of user interface common to >>> consumer-based Web of Things products – a built-in interface, or >>> interaction via a mobile device such as a smartphone or a standalone >>> device such as a digital assistant smart speaker. The ability for >>> people with disabilities to interact with Web of Things, and >>> technology in general, depends largely on two factors – the >>> accessibility of the interface and the use of accessible content to work with on this interface. >>> >>> To make an interface accessible, disability-specific AT generally >>> needs to be built into the product. >>> >>> With regards to devices that have built-in interfaces such as smart >>> refrigerators, there are currently few that have any such AT features >>> built-in, nor are there mechanisms to add features due to the >>> proprietary nature of the interface. Furthermore, even if devices >>> such as a smart refrigerator were to have an AT such as a screen >>> reader to support people who are blind, it is unlikely that, due to >>> the proprietary operating system of the device, the tool would be familiar. >>> This would therefore mean that it would require the user to learn yet >>> another way to control and interact with the device. >>> >>> However, there is an initiative that may provide an access solution – >>> the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure (GPII) created by Raising >>> the Floor (2017). In a Web of Things context, GPII could provide >>> support in that a compatible device with a built-in interface, such >>> as a smart refrigerator, could potentially change its interface based >>> on the user’s profile. For example, the interface could be set up >>> with high contrast and large print for a low vision user, or the >>> touchscreen buttons could be lowered for a person in a wheelchair. >>> However, the concept of GPII remains elusive at this point in time. >>> As previously discussed, privacy and security concerns are also >>> present – people with disabilities would need to share information >>> about their disability-specific needs with unknown third parties, and >>> this raises concerns. In addition, the large-scale network required >>> to support the sheer volume of devices is not currently available (Hollier, 2013). >>> >>> The use of smartphones and other mobile devices as an alternative >>> user interface for Web of Things is therefore currently the most >>> popular, and the most accessible, option available for this purpose >>> (Apple, 2016; Google, 2016; Hollier, 2016). This is due to the two >>> most popular mobile and tablet operating systems, Apple iOS and >>> Google Android, containing a wealth of accessibility features. As >>> such, interaction between a smartphone and Web of Things device can >>> be achieved via an app or a digital assistant in an accessible manner. >>> Furthermore, there are a number of disability-specific benefits in >>> the use of a smartphone to gather information and interact in real-time. >>> For example, the use of parking sensors in a shopping centre can >>> provide useful information to a smartphone app so that a person that >>> needs a disabled parking bay can quickly identify which ones are >>> available and which one is closest to the shop being visited (Lambrinos & Dosis, 2013). >>> >>> Another important benefit is affordability. While the affordability >>> of the Web of Things is helpful for everyone, it is of particular >>> benefit to people with disabilities due to the generally high costs >>> associated with disability-specific technology solutions. The Web of >>> things can offer more affordable solutions such as the implementation >>> of home automation. >>> >>> However, while smartphones and apps are an effective way to engage >>> with Web of Things, much of their success depends on the need to >>> ensure that the content within the apps is accessible. To achieve >>> this, the apps need to be created in compliance with web standards. >>> >>> >>> 4.3. >>> >>> >>> 4.4.Current W3C WAI work >>> >>> Current W3C Wai work highlights the following issues of importance in >>> addressing potential accessibility issues: >>> >>> §Interoperability: for example, a connected television can be >>> controlled by a smartphone with a screen reader. >>> >>> §Accessibility support: for example, a connected projector provides >>> access to the presentation data in addition to the video output. >>> >>> §Configuration: for example, a profile with preferences, such as >>> large text, could be sent from one device to another. >>> >>> §Privacy: for example, a connected refrigerator suggests shopping >>> lists but does not share specific dietary and health needs. >>> >>> §Security and safety: for example, a connected pacemaker is safe from >>> manipulation and failure. >>> >>> >>> ** >>> >>> >>> 5.References >>> >>> AT&T. (2015). AT&T and Permobil unveil the connected wheelchair proof >>> of concept at CTIA. /AT&T Newsroom/. Retrieved from >>> http://about.att.com/story/att_permobil_unveils_connected_wheelchair. >>> h >>> tml >>> >>> Apple. (2016). iOS accessibility. >>> >>> Bian, J., Yoshigoe, K., Hicks, A., Yuan, J., He, Z., Xie, M., Guo, >>> Y., Prosperi, M., Salloum, R., & Modave, F. (2016) Mining Twitter to >>> assess the public perception of the “Internet of Things”. /PLoS ONE >>> 11/(7), e0158450. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158450 >>> >>> Bradshaw, T., & Waters, R. (2017). The dash to connect the consumer. >>> /Financial Times./ >>> https://www.ft.com/content/67a08388-d3f8-11e6-9341-7393bb2e1b51?mhq5j >>> = >>> e5 >>> >>> Cornel, C. E. (2015). The role of Internet of Things for a continuous >>> improvement in education. /Hyperion Economic Journal, 3/(2), 24-31. >>> >>> Domingo, M. C. (2011). An overview of the Internet of Things for >>> people with disabilities. /Journal of Network and Computer Applications/. >>> /35/(2), 584-596. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnca.2011.10.015 >>> >>> Dores, C., Reis, L., & Vasco Lopes, N., (2014). Internet of things >>> and cloud computing. 9th Iberian Conference on Information Systems >>> and Technologies (CISTI), 18-21 June, 2014. >>> http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/6877071/?reload=true >>> >>> G3ICT. (2015). /Internet of Things: New Promises for Persons with >>> Disabilities/. Global Initiative for Inclusive Information and >>> Communications Technology. >>> http://g3ict.org/resource_center/publications_and_reports/p/productCa >>> t >>> egory_books/subCat_2/id_335 >>> >>> >>> Gartner. (2017). Gartner says 8.4 billion connected “things” will be >>> in use in 2017, up 31 percent from 2016. Retrieved from >>> http://www.gartner.com/newsroom/id/3598917 >>> >>> Google. (2016). Android accessibility – Overview. Retrieved from >>> https://support.google.com/accessibility/android/answer/6006564?hl=en >>> >>> Heng, Z., Yi, C. D., & Zhong, L. J. (2011). Study of classroom >>> teaching aids system based on wearable computing and centralized >>> sensor network technique. /2011 International Conference on Internet >>> of Things and 4th International Conference on Cyber, Physical and >>> Social Computing/, Dalian, 624-628. >>> >>> Hennig, N. (2016). Natural user interfaces and accessibility. >>> /Library Technology Reports, 52/(3), 5-17. >>> https://journals.ala.org/index.php/ltr/article/view/5969/7598 >>> >>> Hollier, S. (2013). The accessibility of cloud computing – current >>> and future trends. /Media Access Australia/. >>> https://mediaaccess.org.au/audio-description-on-radio/current-and-fut >>> u re-trends-of-cloud-computing-accessibility >>> >>> Hollier, S. (2016). Affordable access. Retrieved from >>> http://www.affordableaccess.com.au >>> >>> Hollier, S., et. al (2017), Internet of Things (IoT) >>> Education:Implications for Students with Disabilities. Curtin University. >>> >>> Huang, J. (2013). Research on application of Internet of Things in >>> nursing home. /Applied Mechanics and Materials, 303-306, /2153. >>> http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.303-306.2153 >>> >>> Lenz, L., Meisen, T., Pomp, A., & Jeschke, S. (2016). How will the >>> Internet of Things and big data analytics impact the education of >>> learning-disabled students? A Concept Paper. 3rd MEC International >>> Conference on Big Data and Smart City (ICBDSC) 15-16 March. >>> >>> Lin, H., & Bergmann, N. (2016). Web of Things privacy and security >>> challenges for smart Home environments. /Information, 7/(3), 44. >>> http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/info7030044 >>> >>> LogMeIn. (2013). Xively brings the Internet of Things to the classroom. >>> Press Release. >>> https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2013/08/21/568300/10045697/en/ >>> X ively-Brings-the-Internet-of-Things-to-the-Classroom.html >>> >>> Mitchell, N. (2016). The 2016 state of the speech technology industry. >>> /Speech Technology, 21/(1), 29-41. >>> >>> Raising the Floor. (2017). Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure >>> (GPII). Retrieved from http://gpii.net >>> >>> Rashid, Z., Melià-Seguí, J., Pous, R., & Peig, E. (2016). Using >>> augmented reality and Internet of Things to improve accessibility of >>> people with motor disabilities in the context of smart cities. >>> /Future Generation Computer Systems/. >>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.future.2016.11.030 >>> >>> Roby, J. (2016). Intelligent new products in home automation. /Air >>> Conditioning, Heating & Refrigeration News, 257/(12), 12-16. >>> >>> Skarzauskiene, A., & Kalinauskas, M. (2012). The future potential of >>> Internet of Things. /Socialinės technologijos: mokslo darbai/, >>> /1/(2), 102-113. >>> http://www.mruni.eu/lt/mokslo_darbai/st/archyvas/dwn.php?id=326522 >>> >>> Traeg, P. (2015). Web of Things projects: Raspberry Pi vs Arduino. >>> Retrieved from >>> https://www.universalmind.com/blog/raspberry-pi-vs-arduino-when-to-us >>> e >>> -which/ >>> >>> Weber, R. H. (2010). Internet of Things – New security and privacy >>> challenges. /Computer Law and Security Review: The International >>> Journal of Technology and Practice, 26/(1), 23-30. >>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr.2009.11.008 >>> >>> Weinberg, B. D., Milne, G. R., Andonova, Y. G., & Hajjat, F. M. (2015). >>> Internet of Things: Convenience vs. privacy and secrecy. /Business >>> Horizons, 58/(6), 615-624. >>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2015.06.005 >>> >>> Zhao, G., & Qi, B. (2014). Application of the WEB OF THINGS >>> technology in the intelligent management of university multimedia classrooms. >>> /Applied Mechanics and Materials, 513-517, /2050-2053. >>> http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.513-517.2050 >>> >> > > -- > Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ Accessibility Strategy and Technology Specialist Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) > -- Shadi Abou-Zahra - http://www.w3.org/People/shadi/ Accessibility Strategy and Technology Specialist Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
Received on Thursday, 23 November 2017 14:57:23 UTC