View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Providing Universal Accessibility Providing Universal Accessibility using Connecting Ontologies: A using Connecting Ontologies: A
Holistic ApproachHolistic Approach
Shuaib Karim1,2, Khalid Latif1,3, A Min Tjoa1
1Institute of S.W. Technology & Interactive Systems,
Vienna University of Technology, (http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/)2C.S. Department, Quaid-i-Azam University, Islamabad3C.S. & I.T. Department, Islamia University, Bahawalpur
July 27 / 2007July 27 / 2007
Technisches Universität Wien
2
Motivation
● Possibility to provide a generic accessibility solution for our prototype SemanticLIFE using ontological approach
● Explore accessibility provision other than at UI
3
Message Bus Plug-in
Data Feed Processing
Repository Plug-in
PersonalRepository
Ontologies
Pipeline Plug-in
Pipelines Style sheets
User ProfilePlug-in
AnnotationPlug-in
Web ServicePlug-in
AnalysisPlug-in
Visualization plug-in
SemanticLIFE (Personal Information Management System)
Accessibility plug-in
4
Accessibility!
● W3C WAI guidelines, 1.0 Content is accessible when it may be used by
someone with a disability
● ANSI HFES 200 (draft) The set of properties that allows a product, service or
facility to be used by people with a wide range of capabilities, either directly or in conjunction with assistive technologies. Although 'accessibility' typically addresses users who have a disability, the concept is not limited to disability issues.
● ISO TS 16071 The usability of a product, service, environment or
facility by people with the widest range of capabilities
5
Accessibility guidelines
● WCAG make web content (Document Content, Structure, and Presentation) accessible for people with disabilities
→ Focus mainly on vision and motor impairments
→ Main contents are web pages
Other impairments, and information sources are not significantly addressed which are equally important in today‘s interactive environment, but are part of overall “Context“
6
Contextual Elements
User Profile Device Profile User Interface Characteristics Task Characteristics ……
We need ways to bind them together
8
Essential accessibility components
User Impairments
Device &
UI A
ttributes Acc
essi
bilit
y G
uide
lines
Accessible Interface
9
There exists many types of impairments
Providing alternate text for the pictures Careful color combinations for the color blind Avoiding complex table layout for the blind Difficulty in interaction due to motor problems Difficulty in system behavior recall due to
cognitive problems
Renewed accessibility effort for each impairment
Accessibility Implementation Issues
10
Accessibility Implementation Issues
Change of impairment severity over time
Voice feedback would no more work if hearing is affected or its severity changes
Response of tactile feedback will change with severity of motoric problems
Cognitive problems may increase over time
Change of system behavior over time is required
11
Accessibility Implementation Issues
Multiple impairments at the same time
Vision problem (hemianopsia – loss of one half of visual field) + motoric problems
Color blind + cognitive problems Cognitive problems + mobility impaired
Need to model inter-dependance of impairments
12
Problem overview summary
● Lack of Universal Accessbility in software Accessibility is generally provided for only distinctive
types of visual, hearing, motor & cognitive impairments
● Reasons: Mostly the focus is specific type of user group Considering many (or all possible) types of
impairments, devices, tasks is considered to be out of budget, and also an unnecessary effort
The mutual benefits of UA are not recognized
Lack of a generic accessibility approach
16
Semantic Web – Promises
● Ability to integrate heterogeneous data sources● Ability to formally describe the information
Formal data description is understandable; and thus processable and sharable by software agents
Automatic reasoning is possible
● Abundance of OS tools from modeling, storage, annotation, reasoning, & query to user interfaces
17
Semantic Web – Architecture
Imapirments Ontology
19
Some derived concepts (1 / 2)
● LeftSidedImpairment isA Impairment relatedBodyPart some BodyPart relatedBodyPart some (hasPartPosition has Left)
● RightSidedImpairment isA Impairment relatedBodyPart some BodyPart relatedBodyPart some (hasPartPosition has Right)
● BothSidedImpairment isA Impairment relatedBodyPart some BodyPart relatedBodyPart some (hasPartPosition has Left) and relatedBodyPart some (hasPartPosition has Right)
20
Derived concepts (2 / 2)
● AnySidedImpairment isA Impairment relatedBodyPart some BodyPart relatedBodyPart some ((hasPartPosition has Left) or
(hasPartPosition has Right))
● AnySidedImpairment_1 isA Impairment relatedBodyPart some BodyPart LeftSidedImpairment or RightSidedImpairment
22
User Interface Ontology
23
Connecting Ontology (CO for O1 and O2)
O1, O2 not related with the same domain of discourse
Independence of two vocabularies Independent design patterns during development
Create new knowledge, whereas other notions of ontology mapping help reorganizing the existing knowledge
24
Benefits of CO
● Facilitate top-down approach of application development
● Facilitate incompatibility resolution between Oi at the ontological level without delving into the application code
● Helpful for code automation● The approach will be beneficial for many domains
including future interfaces for e-Learning. Travel on the interface and way finding consisting of tasks such as exploration, search and maneuvering can be greatly improved by interconnecting ontologies of user’s tasks, impairments, interaction devices & visualizations in use
25
Generic Accessibility Pattern
26
Memory Recall Pattern
27
Perception Effect Pattern
28
Mobility Enhancement Pattern
29
Persistence of Patterns
● Formal description of semantics for each component
● Formal description of consequences and effects of potentially interacting component on each other
30
Accessibility Framework
● A scalable framework using SemWeb Technology
40
Rules to Make Connections b/w Imp and Ui
Low perception implies suggesting high usability components (VisualAcuityLow uiLegibilityGood)
(?x rdf:type imp:VisualAcuity) (?x imp:perceptionMeasure imp:Low) (?y rdf:type ui:UiComponent) (?y ui:hasLegibility ui:Good) (?x eg:suggests ?y).
41
Rules to Make Connections b/w Imp and Ui
High perception implies suggesting fair usability components (VisualAcuityHigh uiLegibilityFair)
(?x rdf:type imp:VisualAcuity) (?x imp:perceptionMeasure imp:High) (?y rdf:type ui:UiComponent) (?y ui:hasLegibility ui:Fair)
(?x eg:suggests ?y).
42
Rules to Make Connections b/w Imp and Ui
High rheumatism implies suggesting easily operatable components (RheumatismHigh uiUserControlGood)
(?x rdf:type imp:Rheumatism) (?x imp:impairmentMeasure imp:High) (?y rdf:type ui:UiComponent) (?y ui:userControl ui:Good) (?x eg:suggests ?y).
43
Generated triples by rules
<rdf:RDF xmlns:co="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/co#" ...> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/imp#VisualAcuity_High"> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#TextSize_09"/> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#TextSize_26"/> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#TextStyle_Italic"/> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#TextStyle_BoldItalic"/> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#TextSize_08"/> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#TextSize_24"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/imp#Rheumatism_High"> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#LabelledButton"/> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#ComboBox"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/imp#VisualAcuity_Low"> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#TextSize_18"/> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#TextSize_10"/> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#TextFont_TimesNewRoman"/> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#TextStyle_Bold"/> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#TextSize_22"/> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#TextSize_11"/> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#TextSize_20"/> </rdf:Description><rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/imp#ColorBlindness_RG"> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#Color_Grey"/> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#Color_Orange"/> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#Color_Cyan"/> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#Color_Blue"/> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#Color_Yellow"/> </rdf:Description> <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/imp#ColorBlindness_YB"> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#Color_Grey"/> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#Color_Orange"/> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#Color_Cyan"/> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#Color_Green"/> <co:suggests rdf:resource="http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/ontologies/ui#Color_Red"/> </rdf:Description></rdf:RDF>
47
Consequences of impairments-user interface ontology
• Helpful in automatically adapting UI for a specific user• Helpful in deducing the best match of UI characteristics
for a user with multiple impairments• Possibility to use the ontology for diversity• Historical data for studying the cause-effect relationship
b/w the impairments and the computer interfaces• Useful for rehabilitation purposes• Possibility to extract impairment related semantics from
user‘s information stored in SemanticLIFE repository, and modify the impairments ontology accordingly
48
Concluding Remarks
● Presenting information to different users with varying impairments is a difficult task
● The ontological approach paves the way for a generic solution by incorporating contextual components
● Another abstraction level introduced on top of UI● The effort could be equally useful for diversity● Is user interface acessibility enough??
49
Semantic Web – Modified Architecture
Accessib
ilityUI & Applications
50
Future directions
● User testing● Integration of profile tracking tools for populating
impairments ontology, and UI toolkits like SWT for populating UI ontology
● Integration of capability measuring tools by automating task execution tests such as MMSE (Mini Mental State Examination)
● Integration for ontology of visualization techniques
51
Thanks a lot!
http://www.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/~skarim
SemanticLIFE Project http://storm.ifs.tuwien.ac.at/
Technisches Universität Wien