Metadata and Accessibility

1. Metadata and Accessibility Liddy Nevile liddy@motile.net

2. Summary • How does a user find the content or services they need? • What about • content that contains inaccessible elements? • content that needs to substitute new elements? • content that needs to be transformed?

3. Goals • To provide information about the learner’s needs and preferences that will allow the delivery of user interfaces and content that is accessible to learners using alternative access systems

4. Matching users to contents • Users have different sensory perception because of • Disabilities • Surrounding contexts • Equipment i.e. differences can be described in terms of sensory perception

5. Typical problems • Can’t see screen • Can’t see colours • Can’t read text • Can’t hear • Can’t control cursor • Can’t type

6. Accessibility • Direct accessibility • Compatible accessibility • Alternative modality • Equivalent content • User choice • User rights - legal requirements

7. User profiles • Classification of sensory perception • How is the record created? • Where should the report be kept? • Who should have access to the record?

8. The IMS Learner Info Profile • The ‘LIP’ • IMS has a closed environment based on the fact that students are enrolled in institutions and that they are registered for special needs. • See http://www.imsproject.org/

9. Three main categories • Control: • How the user interface is controlled • Display: • How the user interface and content is displayed • Content: • Content structuring, content types, and content equivalents or alternatives.

10. Generic and Specialized Elements • Generic: • a set of settings common to most alternative access systems within the category • Special: • settings specific to certain technologies within the category

11. Control Elements • Keyboard enhanced: keyboard enhancements such as sticky keys, slow keys, etc. • Alternative keyboard: settings for enlarged keyboards, miniature keyboards, or keyboards with alternative control methods • On-screen keyboard: settings forkeyboards displayed on the screen, controlled using pointers or discrete switches. Access methods include scanning and coded input. • Alternative pointing: Settings for alternative pointing systems e.g. headpointers, trackballs, joysticks.

12. Control Elements cont. • Mouse emulation: Settings for access systems that emulate a mouse e.g., mouse keys. • Voice Recognition: Settings for voice recognition systems, including pointers to voice files.

13. Display Elements • Screen reader:Settings for systems that read the screen and interpret what the user interface otherwise presents visually (without visual cueing). • Screen enhancement:Settings for systems that enhance the screen visibility using magnification, enhanced contrast etc. • Text-read and hi-light: Settings for systems that both read text and visually cue the user. • Braille display:Settings for refreshable Braille displays • Tactile display:Settings for haptic and other tactile displays.

14. Content Elements • Alternatives to visual: Video description, alt-text, haptic rendering, etc. • Alternatives to audio: Captioning, ASL translation, enhanced multimedia captioning • Structural presentation: Compression and expansion of document

15. Structural navigation: Mechanisms for navigating through the structure of the content (eg. header to header) • Learner scaffold: Settings to specify learner scaffolds needed by the learner • Personal style sheet: Pointers to style sheets

16. Example Implementation Web4All (http://www.web4all.ca) • Personal smart card with XML preference string • Automatically configures multi-user workstation according to preferences • Configures system settings, launches and configures browser preferences and AT • Workstation returns to default settings when card is removed

17. Example Implementation Barrierfree Project XML accessibility preference string used to: • Configure Browser/Player interface • Retrieve and aggregate necessary content, style sheets and equivalent content (e.g., captioning) • Customize content display and control • http://www.barrierfree.ca

18. Note the other ‘users’ • Legislation and policies demand accessibility of contents • Evaluation and monitoring of accessibility is of concern to management • Metadata can be useful in this management process...

19. What do we want to do? • Provide compliance information • Support personal discovery by • Enabling search on compliance • Matching users to resources • Matching resources to repair tools • Matching resources to transformations

20. DC accessibility proposal • description • coverage • source • relation • format • type • title • identifier • creator • contributor • publisher • Date • language • rights • subject + what?

21. dc:relation * Replaces, is required by, is part of, is referenced by, …. • is format of • expects changes in format but not in content • is version of • expects changes in content • conforms to • relates to a standard

22. Accessibility communities consider that some content can be available in alternative formats but some is more than this, it is equivalent, i.e. for some users the alternative will be not merely interpretation of the original but suitable to be used instead.

23. dc:relation qualifier proposal • Is-equivalent-to • Has-equivalent • Questions • does it need to say this is equivalent content?? • That it is accessibility specific? • What about phone users etc ...

24. Other ideas • Earl • Evaluation And Report Language • CC/PP • Composite capabilities preferences profile

25. A generalised goal • To produce information and systems that will allow access to all content even where accessibility has not been built into the original content and has not been anticipated by the original authors.

26. An invitation... • If you are interested in contributing to this work, please visit http://dublincore.org/groups/access/ • And join the dc.accessibility discussion list