At the DC 2001 meeting in Tokyo, there was a BOF about metadata and
accessibility. The need for accessible content, ie, to make resources and
services on the web accessible to everyone, whatever access device they use,
is becoming a priority, if not a legal requirement, in many countries.
This 'access' is not the same as access in the sense that everyone has a
computer etc but rather that given access by telecommunications, everyone
can access what is delivered as a web object. It is particularly about
making the web accessible to those with disabilities but, as with the ramp,
everyone else gains too. For more about accessibility see
http://www.w3.org/WAI/ or the new white paper at http://www.imsproject.org/.
A BOF led to the development of a proposal for an Interest Group. A charter
for this has now been submitted to Makx Dekkers.
Anyone interested in this is encouraged to contribute to the work. There
will be an open workshop on this topic at WWW2002 in Hawaii in May.
Liddy
What follows is a brief report on the DC2001 BOF.
_____________________
Accessibility BOF
Convenor: Liddy Nevile
Participants:
Soile Hirvasniemi & Kai Ňňrni - Uni. of Oulu Finland design of info
serviceŠaccess is an issue
Nancy Morgan - Gateway to Educational Materials - US s 508 so GEM
concerned
Andy Powell - UKOLN - UK for advice to universities and RDN
Josh Cox - WHO - Europe and everywhere: obvious accessibility needs
A number of other DC2001 participants expressed their interest in this BOF
but were unable to attend at the time.
Agenda
Is it a metadata issue?
What is needed?
What should be done?
A resource and accessibility metadata
Resource Description
We want to convey a statement that there are appropriate multiple versions
of content, within the same resource, so that everyone who has the resource
will have access to a suitable transformation of it.
Equivalence - a special notion
Accessibility communities consider that some content can be available in
alternative formats but some is more than this, it is equivalent, i.e. for
some users the alternative will be not merely interpretation of the original
but suitable to be used instead - see definitions at http://www.w3c.org/WAI
What DC elements are relevant
Rights - access rights
Type not here
Format mime type, size, could be relevant
A new element ?
only if essential
for political reasons?
because the information doesnąt dumb-down to readable form
(Note: an associated text string could be very long)
Refinements of RELATION
Is format of - expects changes in format but not in content
Is version of expects changes in content
Relevant projects
REVEAL is a gateway to accessible resources can it use ERL metadata?
In general, gateways need to be accessible and they can expose accessibility
or otherwise of the resources they point toŠ
Utility of gateways will improve if they carry this infoŠ
Issues
What is the relationship between ERL descriptions and DC descriptions?
Is it sensible to embed one in the other?
Could one provide, as part of DC RELATION, information about the
relationship between equivalent resources?
Should ERL schemata be recommended?
What action?
An interest group with a charter to look at the big questions above.
What liaisons?
W3C/WAI - Developing accessibility standards, tests, and ERL, etc.
IEEE/LOM (IMS) - Working on metadata about resources and learners and
accessibility
NCAM - accessible media in general..
others Š.
|