- From: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2017 09:28:21 +0100
- To: Scott Hollier <scott@hollier.info>, RQTF <public-rqtf@w3.org>
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/productCat >> 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-futu >> 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-use >> -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)
Received on Thursday, 23 November 2017 08:28:41 UTC