RE: encapsulating knowledge Vs providing an alternate access method

Yes,
The IMS folks are reviewing this too, and making sure this meets their
needs. 
 
 

All the best

Lisa Seeman

 

Visit us at the UB  <http://www.ubaccess.com/> Access website

UB Access - Moving internet accessibility

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Schwerdtfeger [mailto:schwer@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 4:59 PM
To: lisa seeman
Cc: sdale@stevendale.com; wai-xtech@w3.org; wai-xtech-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: encapsulating knowledge Vs providing an alternate access
method



Hi Lisa,

Access keys is only a piece of the story. 

This is something I have wanted to do for some time. One of the
stumbling blocks was implementation in desktop browsers. We may be able
to get this into Mozilla if we put a good design together. ... Also, we
need to start considering preferences on the server. 

What we do here should also be reproduceable through a web service.

We should put a roadmap together to address this. For example, we need
to determine what is the standard for preferences stored on the server.
The IMS Global Learning Consortium has been looking at stored
preferences. We should put a work effort together to compare the total. 

We need to put a roadmap together for this.

Rich


Rich Schwerdtfeger
STSM, Software Group Accessibility Strategist/Master Inventor
Emerging Internet Technologies
Chair, IBM Accessibility Architecture Review Board
schwer@us.ibm.com, Phone: 512-838-4593,T/L: 678-4593

"Two roads diverged in a wood, and I - 
I took the one less traveled by, and that has made all the difference.",
Frost

Inactive hide details for lisa seeman "
src="cid:796532714@14042004-144D" width=16>lisa seeman
<seeman@netvision.net.il>






	lisa seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il> 
Sent by: wai-xtech-request@w3.org 

	04/14/2004 07:56 AM




To

sdale@stevendale.com	



cc

wai-xtech@w3.org	



Subject

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
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> 
> 
> 
>