Re: encapsulating knowledge Vs providing an alternate access method

What about CC/PP?

Lisa Seeman said:
> I sent this email to PF -who are discussing access keys.
>
> I think this approach to accessibility may be interesting, and solve the
> dilemma of how to get accessibility for Learning related disabilities
> adopted.
>
> Note- the lag between AT adoption and coding capabilities can be solved
> by server side transcoding services.
>
>
>
> .....
>
> A case for knowledge representation?
>
>
>
> Summary
>
> This is an example of the conflict of encapsulating knowledge Vs
> providing an alternate access method.
>
>
>
>
>
> Background to semantic based accessibility.
>
> Semantic based Web accessibility is about encapsulating and capture of
> information about a page, that can then be interpreted to create better
> accessibility.
>
>
>
>  A semantic layer of meaning to the site can be added using  Semantic
> Web annotations or can be incorporated into the page markup itself.
> Either way this semantic information is then interpreted by a  server
> program or the user agent to create any number of  accessible
> presentational layers or renderings of the page -- so that users can
> view the web site and content though a presentation that works with
> their scenario.
>
>
>
> An example - Access keys
>
>
>
> Usercase
>
>
>
>
>
> Current usecase
>
>
>
> The author can associate an access key in place of an alternate access
> method in place of a mouse event.
>
> The author needs to do
>
> *	Chouse which links and controls are important enough to receive
> a designated access key
> *	Decide on what that access key should be
> *	Ensure that there are not conflicts of access keys (as often
> happens with content management systems.)
>
>
>
> What the user gets:
>
> The user can now access a control easily using the author designated
> keyboard accesskey
>
>
>
> Sometimes the access key may already be designated by the assistive
> technology or user system
>
> Access keys may not always be intuitive.
>
>
>
> User example:
>
> The  contact us  link is designated  the access key designated of  "s"
>
> The site map link, which was considered less important to the _author_
> did not get a designated link
>
> The products page is designated   an access key of  "C"
>
>
>
> Proposed usecase
>
>
>
> The author can associate the role of the link or control
>
>
>
> The author needs to
>
> *	Associate a resource with a role OR associate a control with a
> role
> *	If no known role exists, a new definition can be created in a
> central repository of content types.
>
>
>
> For example a single RDF statement that associated a page with the
> definition of a site map
>
>
>
> What the user gets:
>
> The user can now access a control easily using the user designated
> keyboard accesskey that is preferred for links or controls of this role
>
>
>
> User examples:
>
> Jon has the following user preferences:
>
> *	All   contact us  links are  designated  the access key "c"
> *	The site map links are  designated  the access key of "s"
> *	Any main menu items get numeric access keys so he can easily
> jump to them -in this case the products page is designated   an access
> key of "3"
> *	Alt M always takes Jon to the start of the main content
>
>
>
> Anna also has user preference for access keys
>
> For her  the site map links are  designated  the access key of "k"
> -which is the first letter of site map in Russian (karta saita) That is
> because her first language  is not English but Russian
>
>
>
> Tom scenario is very different.
>
> *	Tom prefers symbols to text when possible. He does not use
> access keys
> *	All contact us links are represented by the same picture of an
> email/letter
> *	All site map links are rendered as a picture of a map
> *	All main menu items are buttons on the top of the page, and side menu
> items that do not have any extra role are simply not shown, unless he
> select a "show me more" button
>
>
>
> Issue:
>
> Should the role information be incorporated into the page or, simply,
> attached to the linked to page or resource?
>
> With RDF it can be viewed as both with flexibility for page specific
> alterations of the role.
>
>
>
> For example - what if there were no alt tags or long desc -but every
> recourse and picture file came with a meta data title and description..
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Conclusion
>
> Some accessibility is more popular then others - access keys is more
> accepted, then adding role information for learning disabilities. Basic
> accessibility for physical disabilities is far more important then user
> preferences and making
>
>
>
>  However with a different approach to capturing the basic accessibility,
> for the same amount of work, more accessibility for more user groups can
> be made available
>
> In the discussion on how to approach accessibility,
>
>
>
>
>
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman
>
>
>
> Visit us at the UB  <http://www.ubaccess.com/> Access website
>
> UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 13 April 2004 05:56:31 UTC