RE: encapsulating knowledge Vs providing an alternate access method

Ahh, Ok I am with you now.
Yes I am bugging them about it.

The DI group have allocated someone the task of looking at this stuff :)

It may be a way of getting great adoption and scope for accessibility

All the best
Lisa Seeman
 
Visit us at the UB Access website
UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steven Dale [mailto:sdale@stevendale.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 11:09 PM
> To: seeman@netvision.net.il
> Cc: sdale@stevendale.com
> Subject: RE: encapsulating knowledge Vs providing an 
> alternate access method
> 
> 
> Hi lisa,  sorry I didnt have much time this morning to elaborate.
> 
>    There was a Composite Capabilities/Preference Profiles 
> (CC/PP) workgroup that was taken over by the Device 
> Independence Workgroup. 
> However, what I wonder is if we could take advantage of this 
> idea of sending user preferences to the server when 
> requesting a webpage.  In the preferences, one could specify 
> what accesskeys to be used or other accessiblitity 
> preferences such as using an envelope icon to represent an 
> email address.
> 
> -Steve
> 
> lisa seeman said:
> > I don't really understand the question. Can you help me out?
> >
> > All the best
> > Lisa Seeman
> >
> > Visit us at the UB Access website
> > UB Access - Moving internet accessibility
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: wai-xtech-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:wai-xtech-request@w3.org] On 
> >> Behalf Of Steven Dale
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 13, 2004 12:51 PM
> >> To: lisa@ubaccess.com
> >> Cc: wai-xtech@w3.org
> >> Subject: 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 Wednesday, 14 April 2004 08:57:03 UTC