download final report - CEN

pogonotomygobbleAI and Robotics

Nov 15, 2013 (3 years and 6 months ago)

59 views



ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

2004
-
10
-
02





CEN/ISSS MMI
-
DC (WI5)

Metadata for Accessibility


Report

CEN Workshop Report 2004

Identifies metadata issues enabling support for accessibility and
multilingualism


















ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page
2

of
46





CONTENTS




1

Foreword

................................
................................
................................
...............................

3

2

Introduction

................................
................................
................................
............................

4

3

Multilingualism

................................
................................
................................
.......................

7

4

Towards accessibility for all at all times

................................
................................
.................

9

5

Multiple languages and accessibility

................................
................................
....................

10

6

Special Workshop
-

Accessibility

................................
................................
.........................

16

7

Summary

................................
................................
................................
.............................

20

8

Recommendations

................................
................................
................................
...............

22

Annex A


Abbreviations and acronyms

................................
................................
.......................

23

Annex B


Bibliography

................................
................................
................................
.................

25

Annex C
-

Papers submitted to Accessibility Special Workshop

................................
...................

27

Annex D


Participating Members

................................
................................
................................
.

43

Annex E


Scenarios

................................
................................
................................
....................

44



ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page
3

of
46

1

Foreword


The Work Item of this Report was formally accepted as part of the CEN/ISSS Workshop on
Metadata for Multimedia Information
-

Dublin Core (WS/MMI
-
DC)in 2004.

This Report was agreed upon by the contributing partners in the CEN/ISSS Workshop on
MMI
-
DC, representing a wide mix of interests including administrations, libraries, on
-
line
education and geographic information systems. The list of company individuals who have
supported the document's contents may be obtained from the CEN/ISSS Secretariat.


ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page
4

of
46




2

Introduction

This report covers the issues with respect to access for all at all times identified in the MMI
-
DC Workshops. It is apparent that there is substantial benefit from thinking of
multilingualism, and all it encompasses, at the same time as consi
dering other accessibility
issues. This is, therefore, a combined report aimed to provide guidance on what has been
done and remains to be done in order to ensure maximum accessibility to information for all
at all times. What follows is a summary of the p
roblems associated with multilingualism and
mismatching of content to users, which is described here as a lack of accessibility.



2.1 Multilingualism

The European Union’s official languages have recently increased from eleven to twenty. The
linguistic com
binations will increase from one hundred and ten to two hundred and ten. CEN
Europe is probably the most diverse conglomerate on this planet and its wealth of cultures,
traditions, languages and customs is the reason for this diversity. Given Europe’s incl
usion
of people from the north of Iceland all the way down to the southern parts of Spain and
Malta, and its use of many, long established written languages, using four main alphabets
-

Latin, Greek, Cyrillic and Hebrew, as well as the range of Asian langu
ages in use, many
Europeans have difficulties when using the Internet.


As more and more homes and offices take up Broadband access, and service providers
exploit the new facilities, so more are denied or disenfranchised from public services and
private ac
tivities. Accessibility has had a variety of definitions tagged to it but this report will
set out to see accessibility mean
accessibility to all at all times
. The Italian who does not
speak Greek may have access while at home but not when they are in Gree
ce. The person
using a wheelchair may have no difficulty at home in finding the information for, say, an ATM
machine but may find that when they use that information they cannot access the ATM
machine because of the physical steps they have to negotiate in

order to reach it.
Accessibility is about treating everyone as equal, regardless of culture, language or any
disabilities they may have. Lack of accessibility is defined as a mismatch between a
person’s access means and those available to them.


2. 2 Acc
essibility

Accessibility is defined as the matching of people’s information and service needs with their
needs and preferences in terms of intellectual and sensory engagement with that
information or service, and control of it. For instance, a person with

a motor
-
co
-
ordination
disability is not well matched to information when they are required to use a mouse click
within a too tightly limited time to gain access to that information or service. A person who is
engaged in an eyes
-
busy activity such as drivi
ng a vehicle is not well matched to information
when they are required to read small text on a screen. A person who does not speak French
is not well matched to information when they can only access French instructions for
operating a course enrolment syst
em. A person who is dyslexic and another who is not a
native speaker of a given language may find they can understand content better if it is
supported by images, and does not use inappropriate, culturally
-
specific allusions.


ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page
5

of
46

Accessibility is satisfied wh
en there is a match regardless of culture, language or disabilities.
Accessibility to all, at all times, is used to mean accessibility to digital resources and
services in all contexts in which technical access is available. It is not concerned with the
si
gnificant but out of scope issue of access to communications technology that makes
possible the access of interest here. Issues of economic disadvantage, or specificity of
disability, are not of concern. Particular care has been taken to ensure that all pe
ople’s
needs are considered equally so no distinction is drawn between a person using an assistive
technology because they must and another person using the latest jazzy mobile device.
Accessibility is worked on as a kind of device, location, context, abil
ity independent
requirement for all content and services.


T
he international community, led by the World Wide Web Consortium, has participated in
work to develop technologies and ways of using them to ensure that it is possible to
construct digital conten
t in ways that can be accessible to all. Sometimes this involves
merely using the standard technologies in the recommended way, and at other times it
means creating necessary additional content or services so that those who need them can
use them. The prob
lems of interest to this Special Workshop are those to do with the role of
metadata in making content and services accessible to all at all times.


For the user, matching their needs is of primary importance and in some cases critical to
their ability to f
unction. Some people’s needs include automatically adjusted technology
interfaces, as they do not have the capability to make the adjustments themselves. For
others, this is also essential because they cannot spare the time or do not have the
expertise to
achieve this. Such needs are often associated with the use of special hardware
or software that is necessary for the person to use a device, such as a computer or phone,
to seek and use resources and services of interest to them. Users with such needs requ
ire
information about whether resources and services can be accessed with their combination
of agents so that they do not find they have configured their device for no benefit. Such a
situation would arise where a person is only able to use keystrokes to m
ove a cursor about
in content and access keys are not enabled by the resource or services. So it is display
characteristics and control features that are of interest to the user.


With respect to content, access is dependent upon a number of factors. A use
r needs to be
able to use the range of sensory modalities upon which access to the content depends.
Where a person does not have the necessary sensory capability at the time, alternative
content in another modality may be required. In some cases, the modal
ity of content can be
altered and this is particularly true of text. In addition, the content itself may be in a form that
is not interpretable to the user. If it is in a foreign language, dependent upon an unsuitable
reading level, not accompanied by suff
icient imagery> Where cultural specificity is not
suitable, or where metaphors are limited in understanding, it will still be inaccessible to the
user.


For users to discover and access the resources and services they need, their needs and the
resource ac
commodations must be described in a standard way. Dublin Core metadata
provides the perfect architecture for this and the information model developed by a wide
community co
-
ordinated by IMS Global Learning Consortium provides the necessary well
-
structured
semantics. The user and resource profiles, having been developed with broad
input, are suitable for adoption and use by many metadata communities.

ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page
6

of
46





What is needed in Europe is the DCMI’s recommendation of a standard extension to Dublin
Core architecture th
at will simplify the creation and exchange of user profiles and the
DCMI’s recommendation of an application profile that accommodates the metadata
necessary for resources and services. Interestingly, while accessibility is of general concern
to all provide
rs of resources and content, the metadata necessary for its provision is likely to
be created by specialists in accessibility, using tools from the growing range. For this
reason, it is expected that the best way to facilitate creation of the necessary met
adata is to
use a separate application profile but to include the content of this within a new DC
accessibility element. For the user profile, it may be necessary to do more work to develop a
person profile into which the accessibility metadata could be in
tegrated. This approach is
likely to serve both the needs of users from the accessibility perspective, and other needs
likely to be identified as being for e
-
government, e
-
business and other domains.


ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page
7

of
46

3

Multilingualism

Multilingualism has, of course, been d
efined many times and what matters is its meaning in
a given context. In this context, multilingualism is considered from the perspective of the
range of speakers and readers. Being able to communicate or engage with communicated
material is at the core of

multilingualism. Being alienated or disenfranchised because of a
lack of language for communication is as alarming as being physically prevented from
access to a location. Again, matching people to communications in languages with which
they have facility

is access to communications, whether live or asynchronous, face
-
to
-
face
or remote. Lack of access is lack of a match.


Languages have inherent qualities: many of these are linguistic but others are cultural.
Obviously, metaphors based on regionally or cul
turally specific analogies do not necessarily
translate into other languages. What is often not realised is that there are other qualities that
affect language use: there are different ways of describing time, location, people’s identities,
and more. Conve
rsations across language boundaries are endlessly surprising; the
provision of multiple
-
language versions of content and translation of content are almost
always problematic. But within languages there are also problems: levels of facility with
complexity
of languages and limitations of languages are two examples. Not everyone is
capable of understanding the same form of representation in any given language, yet we
know this is not just a matter of literacy learning; for some it is to do with how well they
have
learned to read and for others it is to do with constraints imposed on them by such
disabilities as dyslexia and disnumeracy. Those dependent upon Braille, for example, can
find that their language does not yet have ways of representing information wh
ich is easily
represented in other languages.


Dublin Core metadata architecture was developed with an awareness of internationalisation
issues. Dr Thomas Baker, in the early days of Dublin Core development, drew attention to
the need for translations not
only in European but also in Asian and other languages. His
efforts led to the constant awareness of this issue and from the early days there were
translations of the Dublin Core documents. The DC elements were not expected to be
translated as this would d
estroy interoperability; the values for those elements could,
however, be in any language. This approach, while commendable, is not completely
satisfactory as an internationalisation strategy and other problems have also been under
consideration.


How, fo
r instance, does DCMI ensure that the translation is a true translation. One strategy
is to assign responsibility for this to an authoritative entity that will be in a better position to
determine the accuracy of the translation. A typical example is provi
ded by the role of the
New Zealand National Library in the translation into Maori. Of course, this is inspired also by
the knowledge that it is unlikely that anyone but New Zealanders will be experts in Maori.
But what about French? Or Spanish? A huge comm
unity of Web users speak Spanish
beyond those who live in Spain and other parts of Europe. Communication between all
people of the Spanish speaking world is of critical significance to Spanish content
developers and so the use of Dublin Core elements needs

to be uniform throughout the
whole Spanish speaking world. As with English being used in European, American, African
and Asian regions, people can be separated ‘by a common language’. Many European
languages are used in more than their country of origin,
and versions and dialects are as
diverse and difficult to reconcile as a potential translator’s understanding of the Dublin Core
standard itself.

ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page
8

of
46





Translations are designed to carry meaning and it is critical to the translation of the
semantics of DC metad
ata that these are well understood and accurate. Japanese presents
a problem when one considers the use of the identity and title tags. The role of words is not
the same in all languages. It is understood that in Japanese, words can represent identity in
w
ays that they do not in English. The translation of the DC element set for Japanese users
has, therefore, required special explanation about how to use the terms. Whether this is true
of other languages is not known, but unless it is known and dealt with,
there can be no
confidence in translations.

ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page
9

of
46

4

Towards accessibility for all at all times


There is an inherent danger in a report like this, encompassing such a large topic, to take a
long time to produce results. This work has focused on being short in dura
tion and
identifying projects that can be started immediately with short time spans to completion.



The work also considered whether to take a “top down approach” or a “bottom up
approach”. The need for something different was voiced by many experts in th
is field. A
“peer to peer” approach was selected to ensure future possible projects would link together,
allowing for others to build on this work. There is a need to further this report to a second
stage to investigate other connecting activities that wil
l enable access to all at all times.


It should be noted that while this project was written under a European remit, many other
countries outside Europe have participated in this work, including the USA, Canada and
Australia. This report tries not to show
any European boundaries in order to ensure
compatibility on a global scale and therefore a lack of redundancy and conflict.


ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page
10

of
46




5

Multiple languages and accessibility


5.1 Dublin Core Multi
-
languages Working Group

The DC ML WG has identified a number of proble
ms when metadata is in a multi
-
language
context. Significant work has been done on this since the early days of DCMI, but there are
still a number of outstanding issues:




Approval process of non
-
English vocabularies



Maintenance of element/qualifier definit
ions in various languages



Multilingual metadata description



Encoding of multilingual metadata descriptions



Cross
-

/ multi
-
lingual interoperability of metadata



Community model for developing culture
-

and domain
-
specific elements / qualifiers



Translation an
d versioning



Re
-
use of metadata schemas and profiles in global community



Interoperability of metadata in global community



Building international forum to exchange information and ideas


5.2 DCMI Internationalisation Working Group

The Working Group’s charte
r includes:

“Any issues originating from or related to the adoption of DC to language or culture specific
issues are within the scope for discussion in this group. A typical example is adoption of DC
to local resources in a local language, which may includ
e definition of elements and
qualifiers to express language or culture specific information. Others include:



Approval process of non
-
English vocabularies



Maintenance of element/qualifier definitions in various languages



Multilingual metadata description



E
ncoding of multilingual metadata descriptions



Cross
-

/ multi
-
lingual interoperability of metadata



Community model for developing culture
-

and domain
-
specific elements/
qualifiers



Translation and versioning

ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page
11

of
46



Reuse of metadata schemas and profiles in global
community



Iinteroperability of metadata in global community



Building international forum to exchange information and ideas.”


Page

12

5.3 DCMI survey of internationalisation of the DCMES
1
:

“This table is a summary of replies to a questionnaire which was given via

DC
-
international
mailing list and is dated June 12, 2002. All of these replies are given by volunteers, and none
of them is a reply from a local authority.”



Language

Country

National Standard
of Simple DC

De Facto
Standard of
Simple DC

Translation of
Si
mple DC

Translation of
Qualified DC

Comments

Reported by

Japanese

Japan

No

No

Yes

Yes

none

Shigeo Sugimoto

French

Canada

No

No

Yes

No

a
,
b
,
c

Marie
-
Claude Cote

French

France

No

No

Yes

No

d
,
e

Anne
-
Marie Vercoustre

Russian

Russia

No

No

Yes

Yes

none

Olga Barysheva

French

France

No

Yes

Yes

No

f

Benoit Thirion

Marathi

India

No

No

No

No

g

Shubha Nagarkar

Swedish

Sweden

No

No

Yes

Yes

h

Stina Degerstedt

Chinese
(traditional)

Taiwan,
ROC

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

none

Hsueh
-
hu
a Chen

Chinese
(simplified)

China PR

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

none

Liu Wei

German

Germany

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

none

Klaus Zaepke


The approach to the problem of maintaining the semantics and syntax that is currently being
endorsed and implemented by this group involves

the use of registries. Registries are machine
-
readable
databases of terms that can be used by different applications to support inter
-
operability
of disparate data sets. They depend upon registration of data
-
set structures by those using them
and need to
provide access to this information (or data) to others who need it to inter
-
operate.
Registries are making clear the complexity of the problem and are seen as an immediate step in
the process but there is a hope that in the long term, automated systems wi
ll replace them, so the
dependence upon maintenance will be less burdensome.





1

This

is a report issued July 2004 from the Dublin Core Metadata Initiative DCMI Localization and
Internationalization Working Group titled
The DCMI WG Group and Summary of Activity 2002
-
2004
Editors
Shigeo Sugimoto,
University of Library and Information Scienc
e Tsukuba and
Karen Rollitt,
National Library of New Zealand
-

Te Puna Matauranga o Aotearoa

ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



13

5.4 Workshop on Metadata for a Multilingual World

This was a workshop held in Copenhagen in July 2004 by the CEN MMI
-
DC and the Semantic
Web Advanced Development in Europe proje
cts. The attendees were focused on the use of
Semantic Web technology to support multilingualism. This was immediately agreed to include
multiculturalism and languages other than natural spoken languages, including those such as
symbolic scientific languag
es, Braille, and concept and sign languages.

The participants were experts in internationalisation and multilingual problems and included the
Chair of the W3C Internationalisation Working Group. Identification of difficulties by the
participants individual
ly and collectively, and possible solutions or work items were the main topic
of the workshop.

Thomas Baker proposed a framework for thinking about machine
-
readable translations of
semantics so there would be a clear separation between a concept, to be f
ixed and unchanged,
and the representation or explanation of it in a multiplicity of forms and languages. Joseph Reagle
wrote about the problems of having machine
-
readable descriptions that were not compatible.
Bengt Farre writes about the value and limita
tions of working with concepts as a base for
automated translation.

Baker concluded:

For the purposes of interoperability, it is desirable that the number of URIs used in the
metadata of the world be kept down lest we overload the Semantic Web with asserti
ons of the
sort that "term http://foo.org/1.1/bar is compatible with http://foo.org/1.2/bar ". At the same
time, other purposes require precision with regard to historical version.

It would be helpful for all concerned if a broader consensus could be re
ached on some of the
general issues outlined above, such as the contrast between a Term Concept and a Term
Version (however we might want to call them) and on the allowability of "semantically
compatible" evolution within a Term Concept.

A Task Force on Vo
cabulary Management in the W3C Semantic Web Best Practice and
Deployment Working Group hopes to make some progress in this direction
[
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/p
ublic
-
swbp
-
wg/2004Jun/0136.html
].


Problems were identified relating to time, space, location, people, mixing and matching of
information for example. Cultures, languages and machines do not share either a common
vocabulary or a sense of what these things

are. There is no direct compatibility and yet it is crucial
to interoperability.

In a preliminary report from the Copenhagen workshop, it was concluded that:



It was clear that in some areas there is a lot of development, and tools are moving towards
the s
tandards of products developed commercially for end users, while other areas still
involved research and development.



In particular, tools dealing with time or location in any complexity tend to be in the early
phases of development.

Work still needed:

A

clear outcome of the workshop was the need for simple step
-
by
-
step explanations of how to
use vocabularies oriented to developers who want to copy working examples rather than
understand the entire theoretical base and then derive their own tools and code
. “ culturally and
linguistically different.

ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page

2004
-
05
-
26

14

(See
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/dev_workshop_report_7/
)

There is a need for a precise description of the tools that
are relevant to the problem, those that
will be required, and articulation of some way to ensure that the developments of necessity are
supported first.

Several papers were presented or referred to and discussed:




Eskimo Snow and Scottish Rain*: Legal Cons
iderations of Schema Design” by Joseph
Reagle at
http://www.w3.org/TR/md
-
policy
-
design



“Concept Coding Framework” by Bengt Farre at
http://134.36.34.102:8
080/ccf/



“Informal position paper on Dublin Core in Multiple Languages” by Thomas Baker at
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/events/200407
-
cph/baker
-
pos



The survey by the DCMI Inte
rnationalisation Working Group.



5.5 Web research

Looking for what has been done in the Cultural and Linguistic Adaptability arena (CLA) was also
done through a search engine with the coverage restricted to the most recent of activities. A
selection of ke
ywords was applied and searches refined where applicable.



How many Internet users do not speak English?



2001
-

49 %



2003
-

54 %



2005
-

59 %



Total number of Internet users will rise from 171 million to 345 million by 2005



What are the problems?



Am
biguous terms e.g. performance.



Multiword phrases may correspond to single word phrases e.g. South Africa → Südafrika.



Coverage of the vocabulary.



The range of objects classified is too restricted
-

many people need precision in
identification of people
, information about contexts to complement information about
information and services,



There is not a one
-
to
-
one mapping between any two languages.



Translating queries automatically is unsatisfactory due to a lack of standard syntax.



Translating queries

automatically is unsatisfactory due to a lack of standard semantics.

ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



15



Translating documents automatically (performance …).



Computing mixed result lists.



NEED 1

Although cross
-
language information retrieval has advanced over the past few years, most re
al
-
world applications that handle documents in multiple languages still provide only very simple
access tools, usually not going beyond a controlled vocabulary search on selected fields, and
seldom for more than two languages. Therefore there is a need fo
r better machine translation and
thesauri/dictionaries.



NEED 2

There is an urgent need for Multilingual Information Retrieval: the need to process a query for
information in any language, search a collection of objects, including text, images, sound fil
es, and
so on. and return the most relevant objects translated, if necessary, into the user's language. This
coupled with the Semantic Web will build an infrastructure to improve accessibility.



NEED 3

Multicultural aspects such as the way in which date
s are represented in different calendars,
direction in which text is displayed and read, cultural representation of certain icons and
pictograms, and standards of practice (name order, collation standards, and leading article
standards) are important.

It
is essential to note that interoperability will play a major role in allowing this to happen. Systems
cannot be designed for exclusive use in Europe but should be designed for use in a wider field to
ensure the European citizen can access much wider inform
ation.



(The URLs used in the Web research are listed in the Bibliography at Annex B.)


Page

16

6

Special Workshop
-

Accessibility


A

Special Workshop on accessibility was held in April 2004 with thirty international experts from
the field of accessibility attendi
ng. The focus of the Workshop was to arrive at scenarios of current
situations in this field in order to develop a plan for further work. Participants spent time thinking
about what accessibility metadata needs they could identify in their experience and w
hat solutions
they were aware of that might help solve their, or others’ problems. The process involved some
presentations and the development of scenarios that represented problems. An open
-
ended list of
issues was created.


It was clear from the meeting
that there has been a lot of work done to develop technologies and
techniques for making accessible resources and services. Participants were challenged to think
about the role of metadata in the situation where, as is the case currently, most resources an
d
services are not accessible but nevertheless people are required to function so have to try to use
them.


The Workshop participants worked through an agenda that had them refining problems and
issues. The documents at Annex C represent the range of docu
ments produced in the process.
The content of the many documents has been analyzed and summarized in the main report. The
first documents collected were pre
-
seminar statements from participants explaining their interest in
a seminar on accessibility metada
ta. These were followed by small group definitions of people who
might need to be considered. Following this, participants developed comprehensive scenarios and
considered the issues they raised. Finally they considered possible solutions, available and be
ing
developed and outstanding issues.


A specific problem for people when thinking about accessibility is to separate the role of those who
develop the technologies and techniques from that of the metadata. Another was associated with
the advances being ma
de in the field of metadata, particularly the use of metadata in what is
known as the ‘Semantic Web’. Machine readable and usable information is the distinguishing
feature of Semantic Web work that increases the need for standardization of ways of describi
ng
people’s needs and resources and services.


In addition, it is often hard to distinguish between needs with respect to digital resources and
services and physical objects and contexts. Conventionally, metadata is used to describe digital
objects and th
e familiar model of description for physical resources, such as books, is carried
across to the field of description of digital objects. Many digital objects, however, are closely linked
to physical ones.


A movie review, for instance, is usually read aft
er having been found as part of a result set when a
person is looking for a movie to view. The next question, or perhaps the first, for the person is
usually when is the film on and where. In cases where the person has a disability, the answers for
this qu
ery that are likely to be of interest are only those that point to viewing the movie in a location
that is physically accessible. Quickly it becomes obvious that accessibility of physical locations is
of major concern to people with disabilities, and so me
tadata describing them should be made
available.

ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



17

A number of scenarios were developed during the Workshop.

One of the outstanding themes was
the repetition of discussion about the need for a framework for accessibility and CLA to show what
needs to be achi
eved in order to adopt a sensible policy on this issue. A number of organisations
are working on aspects of the problem but there is not a unifying agency that is supervising the
transition/distinction of work on metadata from work on technologies and tech
niques. While co
-
operation is a feature of the work done by those concerned about accessibility, coordination is a
problem. Funding for such an activity is not forthcoming because what funding there is, is
consistently directed towards solving a particular

problem, depending on the goodwill and
generosity of others to help coordinate the work.


NEED 4

A framework for accessibility and CLA This framework requires a set of guidelines for metadata to
help the implementer maintain interoperability, meeting the
needs of accessibility for all at all
times, while considering locally specific and relevant aspects. The W3C Semantic Web
programme would form part of this framework.


NEED 5

The need to ensure that Dublin Core is actively involved with the work of such g
roups as
EuroAccessibility, IMS Global Learning Consortium, W3C/WAI, INCITS V2, the Semantic Web
programme of W3C, and more.


NEED 6


Location
-
specific access metadata elements to describe physical locations and access to them.
This could include contexts
that necessitate special user profiles. Examples include where a
context has special characteristics such as that there is a high level of noise and sound features of
resources and services will not be audible, or there is a safety need for gloves so that
fine motor
-
coordination will not be available for use of keys and a mouse.

A person, who wishes to see a film in a cinema and needs wheelchair access in order to do so, is
not very interested in being told how many places are showing the film but have no a
ccess for
them. They need to know if there is wheelchair access and if there is a space available to them.

A person who has to make considerable effort to get to an automatic teller machine does not want
to find that it is physically beyond their reach.
They need to know if the machine is accessible to
them.

A blind person does not want to be directed to a graphical kiosk and a deaf person does not want
to be told to listen to the recorded descriptions for interpreting a museum display. They need to
know
what is available to them.

In many cases, the providers have taken time to make their services or locations accessible but it
is just too hard to find out that this is the case, so people avoid the services or locations for fear of
finding them inaccessibl
e. Making location specific metadata will allow providers to offer a more
refined search.




ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



18

NEED 7

A way to record and store information that describes the access needs of users. A student with
disabilities and so special needs using computers on a unive
rsity campus needs the computer
being used to automatically be configured for their use and to revert to a default state for
subsequent users. Providers of computing facilities and content needs a convenient way to
discover what is required for them to be
able to satisfy a user’s needs. Information about a user’s
needs should be in a standard form to ensure its inter
-
operability.


NEED 8

A tool that allows a student considering embarking on a course to determine the accessibility of
the course content and t
o assess what will be required to make the course fully accessible to
them. The course providers need information that will allow them to make accurate assessments
of the work required and the cost of such work and the chance of success of any work to be
u
ndertaken. Such information should be in a standard form so that it is interoperable.


As part of the process of identifying possible solutions to problems, several presentations were
made to show what is possible and what is already being developed. Indus
try Canada initiated
work that has now been adopted and supported by many and should emerge as a standard in the
field of accessibility. The following scenarios illustrate some of the possibilities.


NEED 9

A member of the public goes to their local libra
ry to find some specific information and is directed
to the government information service available there on the computers. An assistant sits with
them to help them find what they need. As this is the first visit, the assistant runs through a series
of
tests to determine what will be suitable in terms of control, display and content, for this person.
The assistant adjusts the display so the person can see what is on the screen, and when all is
well, records the person’s access profile. Once this is done,

the assistant is able to show the
person how to use a search engine that takes account of the profile, including in the enquiry terms
relating to language density and transformability, to focus the search for information that is
particularly geared toward
s that person’s needs. Suitable content is found and, having been
reviewed on the screen, is made available to the person in large print for them to take away.

It is hard to see how accessibility needs can be met without this user profile approach. No two

people are the same according to some neat, generic class, and no person is the same in all
contexts. Having a multiplicity of profiles related to contexts makes it possible for a person with
disabilities to use one that is appropriate at the time, includ
ing one that takes into account that as it
is late in the day, they will probably be extra tired and able to exert less effort.

All scenarios describing user needs point to the need for standardised metadata as the means of
recording user profiles

and
meta
data on the resources and services that allow for the recording of
data on language density and transformability.


Another aspect of metadata use that emerged as significant was the way in which Semantic Web
technologies are helping solve problems. Third p
arties are often required to increase the
accessibility of resources and this can be achieved by having a system that associates
annotations with the original content and then uses those annotations to transform the original
content. This has been done wit
h content for dyslexic people but needs to be made available for
the range of needs and preferences. It depends, in the end, on Semantic Web technologies to
help transform the artistic or ‘semantic’ part of the content. For example, an item containing a ri
ch
text section describing a bed of tulips by using a metaphor associated with a well
-
known
ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



19

landmark in Warsaw may need to be replaced by an image of the range of reds available in flames
to demonstrate equivalent meaning. The connection between the flames

and Warsaw may not be
direct, but determinable by reference to the Semantic Web.


The Special Workshop held an on
-
line meeting before, during and after the Workshop had
finished, thus allowing the continual refinement of ideas. Many issues were left unres
olved due to
the tight timeframe but these are explained later. Another Workshop was suggested to look at CLA

issues specifically. The first workshop was well attended with attendees covering their own costs.
The full list can be found in Annex D.


Those a
ttending the Special Workshop, together with those who were unable to do so but who
showed an active interest in it, formed a Review Group for this report. Before this report was
published, the Review Group read and refined the content. The Review Group wa
s established on
a mailing list and was provided with a forum and a register for posting messages and documents.
This Review Group and the website will stay in existence to continue the interaction on this
subject.

ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



20

7

Summary


The following needs have been i
dentified as the result of the work undertaken so far in the project.


NEED 1

Although cross
-
language information retrieval has advanced over the past few years, most real
-
world applications that handle documents in multiple languages still provide only ve
ry simple
access tools, usually not going beyond a controlled vocabulary search on selected fields, and
seldom for more than two languages. Therefore there is a need for better machine translation and
thesauri/dictionaries.



NEED 2

There is an urgent nee
d for Multilingual Information Retrieval: the need to process a query for
information in any language, search a collection of objects, including text, images, sound files, and
so on. and return the most relevant objects translated, if necessary, into the
user's language. This
coupled with the semantic web will build an infrastructure to improve accessibility.



NEED 3

Multicultural aspects such as the way in which dates are represented in different calendars,
direction in which text is displayed and read
, cultural representation of certain icons and
pictograms, and standards of practice (name order, collation standards, and leading article
standards) are important.

It is essential to note that interoperability will play a major role in allowing this to h
appen. Systems
cannot be designed for exclusive use in Europe but should be designed for use in a wider field to
ensure the European citizen can access much wider information.



NEED 4

A framework for accessibility and CLA. This framework requires a set of

guidelines for metadata to
help the implementer maintain interoperability, meeting the needs of accessibility for all at all
times, while considering locally specific and relevant aspects. The W3C Semantic Web
programme would form part of this framework.


NEED 5

The need to ensure that Dublin Core is actively involved with the work of such groups as
EuroAccessibility, IMS Global Learning Consortium, W3C/WAI, INCITS V2, the Semantic Web
programme of W3C, and more.



ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



21

NEED 6


Location
-
specific access metadata

elements to describe physical locations and access to them.
This could include contexts that necessitate special user profiles. Examples include where a
context has special characteristics such as that there is a high level of noise and sound features of
resources and services will not be audible, or there is a safety need for gloves so that fine motor
-
co
-
ordination will not be available for use of keys and a mouse.


NEED 7

A way to record and store information that describes the access needs of users. A s
tudent with
disabilities and so special needs using computers on a university campus needs the computer
being used to automatically be configured for their use and to revert to a default state for
subsequent users. Providers of computing facilities and con
tent needs a convenient way to
discover what is required for them to be able to satisfy a user’s needs. Information about a user’s
needs should be in a standard form to ensure its inter
-
operability.


NEED 8

A tool that allows a student considering embarkin
g on a course to determine the accessibility of
the course content and to assess what will be required to make the course fully accessible to
them. The course providers need information that will allow them to make accurate assessments
of the work required

and the cost of such work and the chance of success of any work to be
undertaken. Such information should be in a standard form so that it is interoperable.


NEED 9

It is hard to see how accessibility needs can be met without a user profile approach. No
two
people are the same according to some neat, generic class, and no person is the same in all
contexts. Having a multiplicity of profiles related to contexts makes it possible for a person with
disabilities to use one that is appropriate at the time, inc
luding one that takes into account that as it
is late in the day, they will probably be extra tired and able to exert less effort.

All scenarios describing user needs point to the need for standardised metadata as the means of
recording user profiles

and
m
etadata on the resources and services that includes the recording of
data on language density and transformability.



ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



22

8

Recommendations

After considering the available information, the following CEN ISSS MMI
-
DC development
activities are recommended if CEN i
s to be assured that accessibility metadata is interoperable
and available to ensure maximum accessibility of resources and services for all at all times:




Development of an application profile for the description of the accessibility of physical
locations
, and events



Development of an application profile for the description of contexts in which people may
need to be accessing resources and services



Development of an application profile for accessibility standards compliance



Creation of a new element for Du
blin Core metadata, DC
-
accessibility, in which
accessibility of resources and services can be described



Development of an application profile for minority language support; development of an
application profile for text containing symbolic languages



Develo
pment of an application profile for people that includes their access needs and
preferences



Creation of a report and a workshop on further activities, given the potential of the
Semantic Web developments to provide solutions to many accessibility problems
, and the
insoluble link with Dublin Core Metadata to make it possible


It should be noted that while there is a need for the multiplicity of profiles, in any given situation, for
any given user, resource or service, the minimum amount of metadata should b
e recorded and in
some cases this will be very little indeed.

ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



23

Annex A


Abbreviations and acronyms

ACCLIP

Accessibility for Learner Information Package


CLA

Culture and Linguistic Adaptability


CLIR

Cross
-
language Information Retrieval


REPORT

CEN Worksho
p Report


EARL

Evaluation And Report Language


LIMBER

Language Independent Metadata Browsing of European Resources


MALACH Project

Multilingual Access to Large spoken archives


OPAC

British Library’s On
-
line Catalogue


WS/MMI
-
DC

Workshop on Metadata for Mu
ltimedia Information


Dublin Core


W3C

World Wide Web Consortium



ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



24

W3C/WAI

World Wide Web Consortium/Web Accessibility Initiative


ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



25

Annex B


Bibliography

Sites used in the Web research

Multilinguality


http://www.limber.rl.ac.uk/Internal/Admin Reports/review_report_2/project_presentation.ppt

http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles
/v01/i08/editorial/

http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v01/i08/Doerr/

Semantic Problems of Thesaurus Mapping

http://www.limber.rl.ac.uk/

http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october99/10oard.html

http://www
-
2.cs.cmu
.edu/~ref/mlim/index.html

http://www
-
2.cs.cmu.edu/~ref/mlim/chapter2.html

http://www
-
2.cs.cmu.edu/~ref/mlim/chapter7.html

http://lhncbc.nlm.nih.gov/lhc/docs/published/2003/pub2003028.pdf

http://videoserver.iei.pi.cnr.it:2
002/DELOS/CLEF/schauble.pdf

http://www.er.cim.org/medconf/papers/peters.rtf

http://mirrored.ukol
n.ac.uk/lis
-
journals/dlib/dlib/dlib/june97/06borgman.html

http://mirrored.ukoln.ac.uk/lis
-
journals/dlib/dlib/dlib/december97/oard/12oard.html

http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v02/102/Wen/wen
-
final.pdf


http://zgate.gsi.go.jp/2kokukan/report/papers/11.pdf

http://www.eu2001.se/eu2001/forum/messageReply.asp?iTopic=105&iMsg=4245



http://www.accenture.com/xd/xd.asp?it=enweb&xd=services%5Csba%5Chotidea%5Csba_enlarge
.xml

http://www.radicalparty.org/esperanto/annx_esp2.htm

http://www.fis.utoronto.ca/special/metadata/cross
-
language_bibliography.htm

http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Article
s/v02/i02/Baker/baker
-
final.pdf

http://www.ifla.org/IV/ifla67/papers/099
-
183e.pdf

hftp://ftp.umiacs.umd.edu/pub/bonnie/tsd20
02.pdf

http://www.dlib.org/dlib/april02/weibel/04weibel.html

http://www.schemas
-
forum.org/metadata
-
watch/5.html

ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



26

http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v01/i08/Miller/

http://www.w3.org/2002/02/01
-
i18n
-
workshop/Barry.html

http://jodi.ecs.soton.ac.uk/Articles/v02/i02/Wen/wen
-
final.pdf


Accessibility

http://dublincore.org/groups/access/

Dublin Core Accessi
bility Working Group

http://www.w3.org/WAI

World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) Web Accessibility Initiative

http://www.imsglobal.org

IMS Global Learning Consortium Accessibility

http://www.access
-
board.gov/508.htm

Electronic and information technology accessibility
-

Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act:
Technical Assistance to ensure successful implementation.

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD
-
wsdl20
-
20040326/

Web Services Description Language (WSDL); Part 1, Core Language. W3C Working Draft.

http://www.w3.o
rg/TR/2002/WD
-
EARL10
-
20021206/

W3C Evaluation and Report Language (EARL) Statement. W3C Working Draft.

http://www.netsteder.dk/foelgegruppe/index.html
http://www.netsteder.dk/publ/tilgaeng/index.html

http://www.netsteder.dk/publ/tilgaeng/index.html


http://www.netsteder.dk/raad/attributter/index.html

http://www.netsteder.dk/artikler/tabel/index.html

http://www.nets
teder.dk/raad/farveblind/index.html


ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



27

Annex C
-

Papers submitted to Accessibility Special Workshop

ASCii's short paper for April 30


In this short paper ASCii will amplify on its interest in participating at the CEN/ISSS Workshop on
MMI
-
DC on April 30.


The company

ASCii has established itself as a specialist in Internet communications, both in content (creation
and management of sites) and in form (portals, web interface, databases ...). We are a private
company, based in Brussels, which recently jo
ined the SWORD
-
group.

ASCii's biggest client is the European Commission's Directorate General Press and
Communication. On their behalf we develop and update many key pages on the EUROPA server .
If requested, we build web applications for e
-
government a
s well.

ASCii set up an accessibility department in the spring of 2003. Besides creating new accessible
websites, we also audit existing sites to validate their level of accessibility. If they aren't, we
propose the client to make them WCAG compliant.


ASCii's accessibility department

The team consists of four persons at the moment:

Project manager is Marc Walraven, who has been working in the field of web accessibility for
several years, as well as on governmental as on company level.

Our progr
ammer develops on a fulltime basis a Java
-
based multi
-
platform tool for internal use.
This software facilitates accessibility validation, reporting and repairing. It takes a lot of work out
our hands so that we can spend our time on less repetitive a
nd thus more interesting tasks. At
this moment the tool generates reports in Microsoft Word format and in EARL.

A webmaster, specialised in accessibility, is in charge of the technical coordination of all projects
(validation with a bunch of tools and

manual testing, auditing, correcting pages, research ...)

Finally, a blind web accessibility specialist assists on several levels (quality control, auditing,
research ...)

In order to keep our knowledge in accessibility matters up to date and to sh
are our

experience
with others, ASCii participates in international seminars and is a partner of organisations working
in the field of web accessibility like the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group and
the EuroAccessibility Consortium .

A
SCii also works in close collaboration with the European Commission's "Comité Editorial Inter
-
Institutionnel Internet ", and is co
-
author of the Information Providers Guide which establishes the
editorial, technical and graphical guidelines for publishin
g web pages on the EUROPA server.


Metadata for accessibility

We want our sites not only to be technically accessible but also as usable as possible to the widest
range of people. The European audience is extremely diverse with regard to all kinds of
com
puters, operating systems, browsers, assistive technologies, to the wide range of languages
ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



28

spoken and to people's different abilities and knowledge to operate their equipment, ranging from
novices to expert in the ICT world.

In order to coordinate the en
ormous amount of documents, the Commission will introduce an
XML
-
based web content management system (wcms) later this year. With this wcms it will be
possible to personalise the requested information for different kinds of people and/or computer
configura
tions. Probably the only way to succeed in this challenge will be to develop a high
-
performance set of metadata. If we succeed this will dramatically improve the accessibility of the
EUROPA pages.

As a result, our particular interest lies in automating as

much as possible the insertion of metadata
for accessibility into a web site or web application. We hope the discussion won't be limited to
static web pages.

Next we think metadata can play an important role in a multilingual world. As we work most of th
e
time for European institutions we deal every day with documents in the twenty languages of the
enlarged European Union. But again we should agree on a method to let a content management
system automatically deal with this task. The on line document colle
ctions are too big to update
them manually. Furthermore, the metadata contents should be easily translatable in order to put
not too many extra pressure on the already difficult and expensive translation task.

After having read carefully the Metadata spec
ifications ACCLIP from Imsglobal/Dublin Core and
the TechDIS metadata, we plead to make the accessibility metadata system not more detailed and
technical than necessary. Web accessibility is already a complicated issue for a majority of people.
We hope the
re will be no need to add an extra day to our accessibility training course only dealing

with instructions on metadata. A company can't afford to double an accessible website's
development time because it has to insert metadata.


We don't want accessibilit
y to be a subject that is just understood by a few highly skilled
technicians. If the goal is to achieve an accessible Internet, the rules/guidelines of implementing
metadata should be clear, indisputable, consistent and uniform.

We are looking forward to

an interesting and collaborative workshop. We hope to contribute to the
concrete outcome of the work from our experience in daily work.

Contact data

Regine Lambrecht and Bart Simons will represent ASCii in the accessibility metadata workshop on
April 30
.

Trierstraat 49
-
51 1040 Brussels Belgium Phone: +32/2
-
286.97.70

E
-
mail:
regine.lambrecht@ascii.be

and
bart.simons@ascii.be

ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



29


Accessibility and the publishing
world

Contributions to CEN/ISSS MMI
-
DC Workshop Metadata for Accessibility

D. Fuschi, A.M.Luccini, F.Cardinali


GIUNTI Interactive Labs

d.fuschi@giuntilabs.it


GIUNTI Interactive Labs is a company of GIUNTI Publishing Group (over 500 years of history,
cen
tring own activity on education and culture). It represents, since over ten years, a leader in e
-
learning content production for third parties and in implementation of technological solutions &
services for training (Technology Based Learning, TBL). In add
ition, GIUNTI Interactive Labs is a
digital publisher for consumer and professional markets.

Main areas of competence: multimedia content concept, design and production, design and
development of software architectures, R&D and standards.


Introduction

The

core issue of accessibility in the publishing world is the actual interpretation that people would
give to the term itself. This could be seen as an academic issue, but actually it’s not. According to
Claudio Imprudente1, founder of the Progetto Calamaio
at the Centro Documentazione
dell'Handicap
-

Bologna, it is worth introducing a clear distinction between deficit and handicap [1].
The first is a real, objective lack of something: blindness is a deficit.

The second is the situation that reveals the defic
it: a non
-
Braille written text given to a blind turns
to be a handicap, but also a Braille text given to a blind that does not know this encoding method
is an handicap. Therefore handicap is everything that prevents a human being from fully exploiting
life
.

At the same time handicap can be augmented, diminished or removed while deficit will remain
unchanged. Moreover education to handicap acceptance is a way to reduce handicap itself [1].

Cultural or linguistic differences, cost factors, consolidated habits
, lack of knowledge, skill or user
acceptance are real handicaps and contribute to raise cultural barriers and prevent access to
culture and education at every level from children up to elderly people.


Accessibility and metadata

There is no doubt that

met
adata are essential to data retrieval and classification
,

what may be not
so apparent is that

they are crucial for real accessibility
.


In the progressive adoption of digitisation and computers in managing archives, several different
standardshave been dev
eloped, as far as metadata are concerned, and several cross mapping
operations have been attempted, as it was necessary to make different systems interoperate (just
take into account Dublin Core [3] and how it maps onto other standards [4][5][6][7][8][9][1
0]).

Moreover, constant evolution, in market and content fruition media, pushes towards a never
-
ending process of requirement modification. This implies that there should be a certain degree of
adaptability to market changes even while retaining a high deg
ree of stability to grant backwards
and cross compatibility.

In our vision one of the real issue is that mapping is just an aspect of the metadata management,
there are other and critical ones like content accessibility and multi
-
lingual management. Simply

taking into account the multi
-
lingual issue adds more than an order of magnitude to the complexity
and, at present, there is no trivial solution. Actually most systems exploit data redundancy to solve
the issue, which means that, generally, metadata that
have to be multi
-
lingual are replicated and
there is one instance for each managed language. This is an obvious disadvantage as brings to
ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



30

potential misalignments and could be a very error
-
prone process.

The accessibility issue is often perceived as somethi
ng simply related to impaired people support
in accessing data. In our opinion this is just one aspect of the whole problem. As we stated earlier
the issue of accessibility covers every aspect of content.

Just to give some examples we can consider keyword
based archiving and retrieving. If you are
looking for a document using a keyword based system rather than a full
-
text retrieval one you may
end either without the document (despite its presence in the archive) or with too many possible
results to check.

W
hat may have actually happened is that the keywords used for the search can differ significantly
from those used in the archiving process. This may depend on the human performing the archiving
operation, how complete has been the content analysis process,
how many significant keys may
have been omitted (voluntary as considered irrelevant or erroneously simply because
unidentified)...

1 Even if affected by severe Spastic Tetra
-
paresis augmented by phonation problems, has been
able to write several books, fai
ry tales and achieve many other activities devoted to promoting
knowledge of handicap among young and teachers. His major objective is to promote a new point
of view over handicap: a positive approach instead of the classical one centered on suffering,
lim
itation and death.

The same could apply to an image database, moreover if you are accessing a federative set of
databases / archives exploiting different language plus a common one, the risk is that in the
translation process a keyword may have been lost.
This issue has been tackled by developing
proper search infrastructure able to manage multi
-
lingual issues [11]. In such case a query placed
into the user language will be translated into all language available inside the set of addressed
repositories via
a specifically designed search application (supported by dictionaries, ontology…)
and then placed in parallel to all subsystems that will reply each in its own language. This is
obviously a work around which does not require to duplicate all metadata and t
herefore avoids
most of the problems mentioned before.

What just stated refers to several environments and can prove even more challenging when the e
-
learning environment is taken into account. We point out the multi
-
lingual issue as we have often
encounte
red such problem in our daily co
-
edition activity.

When using a foreign language, despite efforts, words will turn out to be cages for concepts. Non
native speaker will be assuming for granted that words will be able to convey to the counterpart all
the im
plication of own way of reasoning while this is only partially true. This applies even more to
automatic systems where the user will assume that the system is implicitly able to manage, as it
should have been designed for this, yet:

“Concepts are expressed

by words. If certain English words are missing in Chinese,

it follows that the concept expressed by those words will be absent in China, and

vice versa”
. [2]


We believe that technology can properly support solving this issue if it will be possible to des
ign
applicative frameworks able to deal with issue both at insertion and retrieval time. In our opinion
what proposed in [11] is a very good approach and can definitely foster a solution to the issue we
propose. In fact it will be possible to embed in the
application layer the access to commonly
accepted thesauri, lexicon and ontology that could be used to support user in selecting the best fit
for metadata input. In a very similar manner search operation could be supported too.

To achieve such result stand
ards could make reference to a well
-
defined set of reference sources
that could be available to application developers to implement such support layer. Just to give a
better idea of what we think of, we would like to provide two examples, one in the field
of library
ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



31

and one in the field of image collections.

Library & Image archives examples

One of the most diffused methods of content classification in the filed is implemented in the Dewey
Decimal Classification (DDC) system. Now imagine that you were to cl
assify/seek a book and you
are not aware of all details of the system, you may end up making fatal errors which will either
prevent you to find the resource you are looking for or others to easily find the resource you are
cataloguing. In more detail accor
ding the OCLC Glossary a keyword is

“a word that conveys
subject content in a search for library resources. Keywords are found in titles, notes, abstracts,
summaries, descriptions, and subjects. Keywords are also names of people and places that are
the sub
jects of a library resource or a listing in a directory”
[12].


This gives the user an extremely wide range of action and can cause plenty of misunderstanding
especially when taking into account multi
-
lingual databases. As a further example it is enough to

point out that if a book title has been adapted during translation into a specific language to match
language constraint, then a user, knowing the translation but not the original title, may end up
seeking the wrong terms in the original language (due to
a further translation step backwards).


In similar fashion it may end up that when seeking for a specific image into a collection. The same

painting may be well known with a set of different names (the “Gioconda” or “Monna Lisa” or
“Monnalisa” from Leonard
o is just an example) or there may be no actual translation for the title
given by the author. Success of retrieval in such case may depend on completeness of inserted
metadata, availability for proper multi
-
language support, richness in keywords and searc
h
infrastructure flexibility.


Conclusions

In our vision accessibility has to be interpreted in the widest sense, therefore it is necessary to
foresee not only adequate metadata structures but also content management frameworks and
tools to be applied in o
rder to achieve such ambitious result. We firmly believe that is only through
this process that culture can be promoted, education granted and a better quality of life achieved.


Adequate education will foster culture diffusion and multi
-
linguistic/cultur
al issue management; this
in turn will foster better social coexistence and therefore a higher quality of life.We believe that a
proper usage of technology will support accessibility in the wider sense, this in turn will
considerably benefit from the desig
n of suited metadata structures and related access methods.


Paraphrasing Niklaus Wirth “Data structures + Algorithms = Metadata Management”2. A joint
initiative of the various standardisation bodies, that have tacked the issue till now, to plan for some
e
xtension to the present set of metadata, in order to grant such an objective like progressing
toward a really and fully accessible world of content, would be essential and desirable.


References

[1] Don Antonio MAZZI, "Forse anche Dio è cattivo?", PIEMME e
ditions, 1997

[2] Adeline Yen Mah


“A thousand pieces of gold


A memoir of China’s past through its
proverbs”,

Harper Collins Publishers, 2003

[3] Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (
http://www.dublincore.org/
)

[4] Meta Matters


Dublin Core Australia & New

Zealand


National Library of Australia
(
http://dcanzorg.

ozstaging.com/mb.aspx
)

[5] UKOLN: The UK Office for Library and Information Networking, University of Bath,

(
http://www.ukoln.ac.uk/metadata/interoperability/
)

[6] IMS Metadata Best Practice and Im
plementation Guide: Version 1.1

(
www.imsproject.org/metadata/mdbestv1p1.html
)

[7] Universitat Pompeu Fabra


Department de Tecnologia

(
http://www.tecn.upf.es/scope/introduction/metadata/SCOPEmetadata_discussion.ppt
)

ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



32

[8] Dewey services: OCLC
-

Cataloging an
d Metadata (
www.oclc.org/dewey
)

[9] Search Support forUnfamiliar Metadata Vocabularies
-

UC Berkeley, School of Information
Management

Systems (
http://metadata.sims.berkeley.edu/proposal.html
)

[10]ML
-
IMAGES !


e
-
Content EDC22046 project (project website:
http://www.ml
-
images.gr/
trial

web
-
site :
http://62.38.207.103:8080/mlimages/
)

[11]Crombie, D., Lenoir, R., and McKenzie, N., (2004) Accessibility from scratch : how an open
focus

contributes to inclusive design, Proceedings ICCHP, Lecture Notes in Compute
r Science, Vol

(forthcoming), Springer
-
Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg New York

[12]OCLC Glossary (
http://www.oclc.org/support/documentation/glossary/#_K
)

2 The actual title of Niklaus Wirth book is “Data structures + Algorithms = Programming”

ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



33

Metadata for impr
oving deaf people’s web accessibility

Inmaculada Fajardo Bravo

Laboratory of Human Computer Interaction for Special Needs (LIPCNE)

University of the Basque Country Lardizabal

1 20080 Donostia

One of the particular interests of the Laboratory of Human C
omputer Interaction for Special Needs
(LIPCNE), University of Basque Country, on
the Metadata for Accessibility Workshop derives from
our work with Deaf People. We are currently developing a research project called “Cogniweb”
which is foc
used on empiricall
y studying web access patterns of deaf people, with the aim of
improving their cognitive accessibility.

Deafness is not only a sensorial deficiency. It also influences cognitive processing; and
knowledge’s representation and organization in memory. These

consequences of deafness affects
to complex tasks, such as problem solving and decision making (Marschark, 2003), which are
typical tasks performed by users in the web. In that sense, one of the Dublin Core’s goal
supporting “commonly understood semantics
”, which provides a
common set of elements
universally understood and supported
,

is of particular interest for the community of deaf people
with great problems of vocabulary understanding and reading comprehension in general
(Leybaert, Alegria, and Morais,

1982).

We think that it is extremely important to consider the theoretical background and empirical
potentialities of disciplines such as Cognitive Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomics for developing
this common set of elements. The reason is that these d
isciplines have a relevant data base of
knowledge about the way deaf people in particular, and human beings in general, store and
represent semantic information in complex systems, like the Internet. For example, deaf people do
not perform a top
-
down proce
ss during the reading, do not use the context (that is, they read word
by word) and, for this reason, working memory (a limited temporal storage of information) is
overloaded. This overload could interfere text comprehension and information retrieval tasks

in the
Internet. Together with the limited temporal storage, the problem could be due to the organization
and connection of words or concepts in the Long Term Memory, where items details are stored,
more than to the relations between those items. In fact,

it has been proved that, in some contexts,
deaf people are worse than hearing pears in attending and recognizing relational information
during the reading and in activating the categories related to the exemplars (Marschark, 2003).

In addition, we think t
hat we could contribute to the workshop’s discussion groups presenting
some techniques developed by Cognitive Science like the Latent Semantic Analysis, LSA
(Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T., 1997 ). LSA is a theory and a method for extracting and
represen
ting the contextual
-
usage meaning of words by statistical computations applied to a large
corpus of text. LSA could be useful as automatic metadata tool due to its adequacy reflection of
human knowledge (and concretely, the peculiar knowledge representatio
n of deaf people), which
could solve problems like training requirements.


References

Dublin Core,
http://dublincore.org/

Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T.

(1997).
A solution to Plato's problem: The Latent Semantic
A
nalysis theory of the acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological
Review, 104, 211
-
240

Leybaert, J., Alegria, J. y Morais, J.

(1982). On automatic reading processes in the deaf.
Cahiers de Psychologie Cognitive 2 (2 ), 185
-
192.

Marschark, M
. (2003). Cognitive functioning in deaf adults and children. In M. Marschark & P.E.
ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



34

Spencer (Eds.), Oxford handbook of deaf studies, language, and education (pp. 464
-
477). New
York: Oxford University Press.

ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



35

Accessibility Metadata in the United

States

Joseph Busch
-

Taxonomy Strategies, USA

There are two key standards that are relevant to accessibility metadata in the United States.
These are Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the W3C recommendation for Web Content
Accessibility Guidel
ines (WCAG) This paper provides brief background on Section 508 and
WCAG, and then discusses how compliance is accomplished by U.S. government websites.

Section 508

The U.S. Rehabilitation Act of 1973 provides the legal basis requiring physical accessibil
ity for
people with disabilities to buildings and transportation. In 1998 amendments to the Act were
passed that relate to information technology accessibility in federally funded programs and
services. The law applies to all Federal agencies when they dev
elop, procure, maintain, or use
information technology including Federal information delivery via the Internet. Section 508 sets the
standards that effectively need to be met by vendors in order to sell or compete to sell, information
technology to the U.S
. government. However, Section 508 does not apply to commercial web
pages.

The 1998 Amendments required the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
(the Access Board) to set the standards for Section 508 accessibility compliance. The res
ult of the
effort by the Access Board is a set of standards for accessible information technology
(
http://www.section508.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Content&ID=12
). Section 1194.22
provides the
standards for accessible web
-
based intranet and internet information and applications.

The Center for Information Technology Accommodation (CITA), in the U.S. General Services
Administration's (GSA) Office of Government
-
wide Policy (OGP), oper
ates the official U.S.
government website (
http://www.section508.gov/
) that provides information about Section 508
compliance. The website provides information to educate Federal employees on how to build the
inf
rastructure necessary to support Section 508 implementation.

Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (
WCAG)

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI
-
WEBCONTENT/
) are the
W3C reco
mmendations on web content accessibility
.
The Guidelines discuss accessibility issues,
describe scenarios that pose problems for users with certain disabilities, and provide prioritized
checkpoints that can serve as compliance measurements.


The following

table provides a summary of the WCAG first priority recommendations.










ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



36


WCAG Priority 1 Checkpoints

General



T數t 敱畩v慬敮t f潲o湯n
-
t數t 敬敭敮e猬 ty灩捡cly "慬t" t慧献



I湦潲o慴楯渠 捯cv敹敤 wit栠 捯c潲o 慬獯s 慶慩l慢l攠 wit桯畴u 捯c潲o fr潭o
捯ct數t 潲o
m慲a異.



Cl敡rly i摥湴楦y 捨c湧敳⁩e t數t fl潷, 攮e., t慧 捡cti潮猠慮搠d慢l敳e



Org慮iz攠摯捵浥湴猠獯⁴桥y 捡c 扥 r敡搠dit桯畴u獴yl攠獨敥瑳e



U灤慴攠 摹湡mi挠 捯ct敮t 敱畩v慬敮t猠 w桥渠 t桥 摹湡mi挠 捯ct敮t
捨c湧敳e



Av潩搠捡畳d湧 獣s敥渠n漠oli捫敲e潲ofl慳a.



U獥⁣s
敡r 慮搠獩浰d敳琠l慮g畡g攮

Images and
image
maps



Pr潶i摥 敱畩v慬敮t t數t li湫猠f潲o敡捨⁡捴iv攠e敧i潮 潦 im慧攠e慰献



Pr潶i摥 捬i敮t
-
獩摥 im慧攠e慰猠(i湳瑥慤n 獥牶敲
-
獩摥 im慧攠e慰猩

Tables



I摥湴楦y r潷 慮搠捯d畭渠桥慤敲猠i渠摡n愠a慢l敳e



U獥湬y 獩湧le

l潧i捡c l敶敬猠潦 r潷 潲o捯c畭渠桥慤敲献

Frames



Titl攠敡捨⁦r慭攠t漠o慣alit慴攠fr慭攠i摥湴楦i捡瑩c渠慮搠湡nig慴楯渮

Applets
and Scripts



M慫攠灡g敳e畳u扬攠w桥渠獣si灴猬 慰灬整猬 慮搠潴桥o 灲潧r慭猠慲攠
t畲湥搠潦f, 潲o湯t 獵s灯rt敤.

Multimedia



Pr潶i摥 慵d
i漠摥獣oi灴楯渠潦 vi獵sl m畬tim敤i愠ar慣a.



Sy湣nr潮iz攠 捡cti潮猠 慮搠 慵摩漠 摥獣si灴楯湳n f潲o time
-
扡獥s
m畬tim敤i愮

Other



Pr潶i摥 敱畩v慬敮t i湦潲o慴楯渠潮n慮 慬t敲湡eiv攠慣捥獳e扬攠灡e攮


Are Section 508 and WCAG Comparable?

While the Access Board and W3C

Web Accessibility Initiative must have been aware of each
other, it appears that these guidelines were developed independently. A helpful and detailed
comparison of Section 508 and WCAG by Jim Thatcher an independent consultant can be found
at
http://www.jimthatcher.com/sidebyside.htm
. While the two standards are similar, WCAG
appears to be somewhat more restrictive and prescriptive than Section 508. It is interesting to note
that some State govern
ments in the U.S. are requiring information technology compliance with the
W3C Guidelines rather than the Federal government standards.

How is Accessibility Compliance Marked?

Section 508 compliance in the U.S. is an offline process that is marked by a dec
laration rather
than machine
-
readable metadata.

A typical example can be seen in the following figure which is the compliance declaration from the
Section 508 website.




ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



37


OGP 508 Statement


Checked for Section
-
508 compliance by OGP
-
CIO


We are committed

to ensure that our site remains accessible to everyone
and compliant with the Section 508 standards. If you have any difficulties
in accessing the information given in any of our documents or need
further assistance, please contact the webmaster at sectio
n.508@gsa.gov
or call 202
-
219
-
0384.

Figure 1


www.Section508.gov compliance declaration


Many U.S. government websites have an accessibility information page. For example, see Social
Security Online (
http://www.ssa.gov/accessibility.htm
), or FirstGov, the official portal of the U.S.
government (
http://www.firstgov.gov/About/Important_Notices.shtml#accessibility
). The

focus of
so
-
called accessibility pages is on people not machines, robots, or agent applications.


During the past few months, I have asked several U.S. government web content stewards whether
there is interest in tagging an accessibility element on an ite
m
-
level basis, and heard no interest in
doing so. I believe that a clear use scenario for such tagging needs to be articulated before there
will be interest in marking content in this way. It is also important to point out that in the U.S. there
is not yet

a requirement that Federal agencies provide any metadata on web pages. However, this
is likely to change as implementation guidelines for the E
-
Government Act of 2002 are being
formalized. For example, see the Statement of Requirements for Search Interope
rability
(
http://www.search.gov/interop/requirements.html
) drafted by the Categorization of Government
Information (CGI) Working Group of the U.S. Federal Interagency Committee on Government
Information.


There is a relationship between accessibility and general usability. Perhaps accessibility is the
core type of usability. There could be some interesting implications to begin thinking about
usability in this way, particularly in regards to m
ethods for testing and validating usability.

ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



38

Accessibility Metadata: Matching the Needs of the Learner

Jutta Treviranus

The Adaptive Technology Resource Centre has proposed a re
-
definition of disability in the e
-
learning context. Disability can be defined

as a mismatch between the learner needs and the
education offered. It is therefore not a personal trait but an artifact of the relationship between the
learner and the learning environment or education delivery. Accessibility given this re
-
definition is
t
he ability of the learning environment to adjust to the needs of all learners. Accessibility is
determined by the flexibility of the education environment and the availability of adequate
alternative
-
but
-
equivalent content and activities.

To promote acces
sibility in e
-
learning the ATRC has participated in and lead activities in
association with IMS and other interoperability specifications groups to develop specifications that
support a better match between the learner needs and the education provided. The

first activity is
the development of the AccessForAll or ACCLIP specification. This allows the learner to state how
they wish to have learning resources displayed, how they wish to control them and what
alternative
-
but
-
equivalent content and learner scaff
olds they require. See:
http://www.imsglobal.org/accessibility/index.cfm
.

To create a successful match to these stated learner needs, learning resources require the
appropriate Metadata. To de
velop this Metadata the Accessibility Profile Working Group within
IMS with the participation of Dublin Core, CEN and IEEE have drafted a proposed Metadata
specification. This specification drafts a common language to state the flexibility of the primary
r
esource (e.g., can the text size and colour be changed, can it be controlled with a keyboard as
well as a mouse), point to any known equivalents and to describe equivalent resources in a way
that matches the learner statement of preferences or needs in ACC
LIP (e.g., is an English
verbatim caption for video y).

The ATRC has implemented both the ACCLIP and the proposed Metadata specification in the
TILE project. A Preference Wizard guides the learner through a number of functional questions to
create an ACCL
IP profile. This is used to deliver learning objects from a learning object repository
that supports the Metadata specification. See:
www.barrierfree/tile
.

The following is a UML diagram of the proposed Metadata
specification:


ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



39



ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



40

Accessible Meta Tags: using the correct parameters for accessible information
processing


Contribution to CEN/ISSS MMI
-
DC Workshop Metadata for Accessibility

FNB (Crombie, Lenoir & McKenzie)

FNB Netherlands has been involved in a large
number of European Commission funded projects
over the last 10 years. FNB Netherlands co
-
ordinated, for example, projects like Harmonica,
Cantate, Testlab and Miracle and is currently involved in European Commission funded projects
such as Tedub, Multiread
er, Music Network and will co
-
ordinate the forthcoming European
Accessible Information Network (EUAIN). FNB was also a founding member of the DAISY
Consortium (Digital Accessible Information System). Enquiries regarding this paper to
ip@fnb.nl

____________
_________________________________

1. The aim of the workshop is to identify and investigate the way in which metadata can help
achieve efficient and future
-
proof solutions to accessibility. It is assumed that this encompasses
the provision of adequate acce
ss to information for people with disabilities and for everyone in a
multilingual and multicultural environment. In order to make this perceived information useful, it
must be represented within an architecture which allows the accessibility requirements t
o be
questioned in more than one way. Such an architecture must enable both the core system to
adapt to new and changing representation requirements, and to allow (theoretically) infinite user
requirements.


2. People compress information. People decompres
s information. The compression procedure

involves filtering out redundant information based on the perspective of the user. How do we
decide which redundant data entities are relevant for the user? What to use? On what
requirements are these redundant data

entities based? Whose requirements? How do we marry
the existence of these
accessibility

metadata entities with the requirements as described in
“common” metadata entities?


More importantly, how do we ensure a synchronised and therefore valid coupling be
tween
any
kind of content with these metadata entities? How do we ensure that any metatags themselves
remain accessible? What is the

contex
t
of any accessibility metatags that are to be conceived? As
Sarah Currier1 points out in her recent article;



These

developments could be said to deal with the structure of the metadata, where I

am concerned with the creation of the content of the metadata fields in describing

learning materials. Once a metadata standard has been implemented within a system,

the specif
ied fields must be filled out with real data about real resources, and this process

brings its own problems.”


How then can we make sure the context stays consistent?


3. If we describe the knowledge that is applied to enable processes to exist in a digita
l system that
parallels analogue organizational systems, knowledge is transferred from the individual
participants to a shared information framework. The use of knowledge can be separated into three
parts: the body of information that is contained
inside
k
nowledge structures;
static
information
about the knowledgeprocessing, which is also known as meta
-
information or metatags;
dynamic
information that is used to describe the processes and procedures to retrieve, transform or use the
content. By introducing
metatags that aim to address the needs for accessible information
processing, it is mandatory to describe the procedures that will meaningfully interpret these
metatags to communicate the content in a way which enables every person to appreciate the
conten
t. Creating meaningful mappings between

the static redundant information
-
the metatags
-

and the dynamic processes


ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



41

1
Currier, S. (2004) “Metadata Quality in e
-
Learning: Garbage In
-

Garbage Out?”, CETIS(centre for educational technology

interoperability st
andards), available online at:
http://www.cetis.ac.uk/content2/20040402013222



4. Many people believe structure to be static: from a metamodelling perspective this is not the
case. It is well known that if the representation of the information at hand is
perceived by the
system and mapped onto a framework, the information is then usable in a multitude of ways: and
for this reason non
-
programmers will often promote the use of XML. However, this markup and the
set of tools which surround it are simply a set
of tools which exist to achieve this objective. If the
architecture of the system does not answer the wider range of needs, requirements and questions,
the markup cannot paper over the cracks. In order to build extensibility into a system, the
architecture

should be such that every element used for processing the information is adaptable.
This can be achieved by building a representation layer which builds an object oriented structure
from the information and which is free to adapt the meta relationships an
d hierarchies intrinsic in
that data genus. This is defined by identifying the parameters upon which the structure is built, and
ensuring they are interconnected in such a way that promotes future adaptability without degrading
the system: which is to say,

using the right parameters for accessible information processing.



Figure 1.
This diagram illustrates the relationships between the different entities in a possible system

architecture using the correct parameters for accessible information processing.



5. The goal should be to anticipate the changes in user requirements. These changes can occur in
the very nature of the requirements, such as new functional groups or in the definition of the
existing requirements, such as additional details. These aims
should be pursued by

adding
redundant information in the form of metatags, thus augmenting the quality of the content. The
content itself and the existing metatag structures, including their mapping to the metamodelling
ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



42

domain, is not allowed to change. Fr
om a metamodelling perspective, this allows us to meet
changing requirements for the future, because if the requirements demand additional detail in the
form of features or metadata, we can unveil the metadata that is available. Such a system
architecture
allows us to deduce where the dynamic structures have to be taken in by analyzing
the static configuring structure. As systems are developed, the static configuring structures also
exist to overview the processes and the relations between processes which c
an be used for future
or similar developments in relation to user requirements.







ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



43

Annex D


Participating Members

Shadi Abou
-
Zahra
-

World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), France

Leif Andresen
-

MMI
-
DC Workshop Secretariat, Denmark

Myriam Arrue
-

Labor
atory of HCI for Special Needs, Spain

Joseph Busch
-

Taxonomy Strategies, USA

Robina Clayphan
-

British Library, UK

Colette Coles
-

Office of the e
-
Envoy, UK

Martyn Cooper
-

Open University, UK

Makx Dekkers
-

DCMI


MMI
-
DC, SPAIN

Inmaculada Fajar
do Bravo
-

Laboratory of HCI for Special Needs, Spain

Thomas Fischer
-

State & University Library Gottingen, Germany

Martin Ford
-

Martin Ford Consultancy, UK

Katie Haritos
-
Shea
-

US Department of State IMPACT Outreach Center

Andy Heath
-

CEN
-
ISS
S Learning Technologies, UK

Dr Georgie Ioannidis
-

Digital Media, TZI, Germany

Regine Lambrecht
-

ASCII
-

European e
-
government content solutions, Belgium

Charles McCathieNevile
-

Fundación Sidar, Spain

Liddy Nevile
-

IMS


Australia, MMI
-
DC Secretar
iat, Australia

Liv Nordbye
-

Norwegian Public Roads Administration, Norway

Stein Nørve
-

Norwegian Board of Education, Norway

Marino Ostini
-

Office fédéral de l'éducation et de la science, Coopération internationale en
éducation, Switzerland

Peter

Rainger
-

TechDis@Sussex, Sussex School of Education, UK

Bart Simons
-

ASCII
-

European e
-
Government content solutions, Belgium

Roland Traunmuller
-

Johannes Kepler Universität, Germany

Jutta Treviranus
-

Industry Canada, University of Toronto, Can
ada

Luc Van den Berghe
-

CEN/ISSS, Belgium

Dan Zambonini
-

Box UK


ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



44

Annex E


Scenarios


Person 1

Helena is a porter who works at the children hospital for sick as she has Portuguese as
primary language and is losing her visual acuity due to cataracts.

She has to view an
educational resource on how to manage SARS patients. The health and safety with SARS
resource was made by Government of Canada and modified for hospital employees.

Person 2

Joseph is a research student at a UK university. The students

have free access to the
British Library

s journal article supply service. This is a service Joseph needs to use to find
resources for his research. He is dyslexic.


Person 3

Sarah is an English teacher in an international school in Milan. She is off wor
k due to illness
and needs a medical certificate. She speaks Italian well and is looking for any forms she
might need to fill in. Sarah

s problem is that although she speaks conversational Italian, she
cannot guess the names that will be used for health se
rvices in Italy. This makes it very hard
to search for what she needs.


Person 4

Marion is a microbiologist who needs to work with some mathematical texts. She wants to
write some new mathematical statements but does not know how to represent them in an
a
ccessible format.


ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



45

Scenarios developed in small group work:


Scenario 1

Samantha is a working mother, working part
-
time as an Educational Support Worker in a
university. She has two broad areas of responsibility:

1.

Assessing the educational needs of stude
nts with disabilities across her university

2.

Providing support to individual students tailored to meet their particular needs


In this work Samantha supports students with a wide range of disabilities: physical, sensory, and
specific learning disabilities s
uch as dyslexia. She also has to work across all the curricular of the
university which are usually in subjects she has no background in. She often has to mediate
between the educators and the students to find the balance between technical and human supp
ort
and appropriate accommodations that best enables the course’s learning objectives to be
achieved by that student.

Samantha’s role is a demanding one; there is always a greater call on her skills and time than her
contracted hours allow for. Samantha’s

time would be more focused on the key issues and her
role would be made more efficient if some things that could be facilitated by accessibility metadata
were in place within her university.

1.

If there was a computer tool that when she undertook an assessme
nt of the needs of a
student in their use of a computer in their studies, that this information was stored in a
standardised way. Further that throughout the computer facilities at the university when
any student logged on that machine would automatically

configured in a way that met their
particular needs.

2.

That there was tool available to her that when a student with disabilities first approached
that university enquiring about a particular course or when they registered that she was
able to run on all th
e online components of that course. Such a tool would automatically
generate a report highlighting which components of the course may create accessibility
problems for that individual student. Such a tool would enable Samantha to focus her
efforts on wor
king with the student and the relevant educators to find the appropriate ways
to address these.


Scenario 2

Doris is a 76 year old lady with failing eyesight. She has been recently widowed and needs to find
out information about probate (this is the legal

term in the UK used to describe the legal process
where the belongings of a person who has died are transferred to those who inherit). She goes to
her local library to find out and it pointed to the government information service available on
computers i
n the library. Someone sits with her and assists her to find what she needs. Firstly the
assistant adjusts the display so that she can see what is on the screen (this data is then stored in
the profile for this user). When searching for the information
on probate the assistant is able to
include in the enquiry terms relating to language density and transformability to focus the search
for information that is particularly geared towards Doris’ needs and not that targeted at legal
professionals for example
. Suitable content was found and having been reviewed on the screen a
large print version was produced for Doris to take with her as reference.


As a result of this positive experience of using a computer to find information Doris signs up to an
introduct
ory course on computers at the library. Her profile is stored so the machine she uses at
the library for this course is automatically configured for her.

ISSS/WS
-
MMI
-
DC/121

Page



46


So the metadata requirements to enable this scenario are:

1.

A means of recording user profiles

2.

Metadat
a on the content that allows for the recording of data on Language density and
Transformability


Outstanding issues:

1.

Issue of ‘trust’ where a 3
rd

Party captions, annotates a piece of content.



Issue of quality control (Who/how/why would the meta
-
data produ
ced)


2.

Accessible to who?



Tension between the idealistic “access for all” and the perceived needs of the
known users of a particular leaning object or other content


3.

Most teachers are content users not content authors


4.

Need to make the benefits known to tho
se who have to put the effort into meeting the
accessibility criteria


5.

Need a means to integrate the non electronic alternatives activities



Is this a Metadata Issue or best dealt with by good practice guides?


6.

The issue of will the metadata actually be fil
led out so that envisaged use cases become
realistically possible


7.

The use case scenarios generated this morning all seem to point to tough problems


is
metadata really going to solve these


8.

There are fundamental limits to accessibility and in these cases

we need to explore what
alternative provision being made


9.

Metadata can enable us to flag where there are real issues for disability in a particular case


10.

Encourage the use of profiles to generate “ACCLIP” data to test things under development