Lisa and List,

My stance - up for criticism of course - is that what we are seeking
here is a place to record metadata about the accessibility of a resource
that can not be recorded in the current DC elements as defined.  I am an
accessibility expert learning about metadata but I am also a systems
engineer who understands accessibility could be managed much more
efficiently and effectively in large scale systems (such as we have here
at the OU) if we had the appropriate metadata).

So I am not precious about what we call elements or where in the
"structure" (I know that's the wrong word in DC terms but can't think of
a better one now) bits of the necessary information are stored.  However
I don't think we should hide the accessibility agenda behind new adopted
terms that don't have a widespread currency globally.  Further in
defining an element (if that is what is necessary) then the name of that
element should be meaningful.

I believe the AccessForAll specification (still being refined) is pretty
close to what would be necessary in terms of resource metadata to manage
accessibility in large repositories/content management systems/virtual
learning environments etc.  The AccessForAll specification facilitates a
number of functions including resource discovery that I cognisant of the
accessibility properties of the resources.  Whether the resource is
adaptable in some way is only one aspect of its accessibility
properties.  A more fundamental aspect is what are the modalities
(senses) needed by the user to interact with that resource as it is
un-adapted?  The terminology for describing this in AccesForAll is
changing in response to some understandable criticism.  However I think
the latest term being used is AccessMode (apologies if I am behind on
this discussion).  Now my argument is that AccessMode says nothing about
adaptability of the resource so why should it be reported under an
element called "adaptability" but it is very much to do with
"accessibility" if you are for any reason (medical, circumstantial,
based on what hardware you are using to access the resource, etc) you
are unable to use one of your senses to interact with the resource.  

This brings me to my final point for this post.  Accessibility is
gereralisable to a lot of situations beyond access for disabled people
to computer mediated resources.  If (as was done at the start of the
AccesForAll work) one defines accessibility as a matching between needs
and preferences of users and features of a resource then I hope the
generality is obvious. Accessibility issues can arise because of
circumstance - e.g. accessing information while driving a car;
hardware/software/comms limitations - e.g. using a PDA over GPRS and of
course preferences/needs relating to interacting with the computer in a
particular way that addresses what is traditionally thought of as a
user's disability.

If we need a new element to be able to map AccesForAll onto DC then for
the above reasons I think that element should be named "accessibility"
but the general applicability of that term (beyond addressing "medical
model" disabilities) clearly spelt out.  If there is a need for a
further general element of "adaptability" then so be it.  If the
community decides to go that route then some of the metadata relevant to
accessibility could be recorded under "adaptability".

OK I am supposed to be taking the kids to their grandparents and I have
said more than enough anyway.  I look forward to the onward discussion.

Martyn

_____________
Martyn Cooper
Head: Accessibility in Educational Media
Institute of Educational Technology
Open University, UK
Tel: +44 (0)1908 655729



-----Original Message-----
From: DCMI Accessibility Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Lisa Seeman
Sent: 07 August 2005 20:22
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: From accessibility --> adaptability


I also think I may have been thinking of accessibility as what we do - 
which is make content adaptable. But to some audiences, some content is 
accessible without adaptability

Further I fear losing the accessibility group will lose the special 
interest of our groups need to the general needs of content adaption.
Maybe calling what we do adaptability and hoping for wider relevance and

interest was a double edged sword.

Perhapses putting together the angel of accessibility and adaptability  
- it becomes about  appropriateness

(and then we can get into censorship...hmmmm...maybe not)

Lisa


Liddy Nevile wrote:

> Oh, is there confusion creeping in here?
>
> There is no question that there is an accessibility community and
> they work on accessibility and they are interested in the  
> accessibility of resources.
>
> What is proposed is the name of the element to be used for the
> adaptable characteristics of the resource - and for that, the more  
> generic name 'adaptability' is recommended.
>
> This term would then be used by the accessibility community in an
> accessibility application profile that would include other DC  
> elements alongside the new one to describe what cannot described now  
> - the adaptability of digital resources.
>
> Thee is already interest in the education community to produce an
> application profile for describing the accessibility of what is known

> as mixed-learning environments, where digital resources are mixed  
> with physical, real wold resources.
>
> There is a project aiming to develop a vocabulary to be used to
> describe the accessibility of physical places and events. That  
> project is likely to produce an application profile using the element.
>
> It seems it might also be used by the mobility community in an
> application profile that would allow them to focus on transformations

> for different devices and locations, etc ...
>
> etc...
>
> Liddy
>
>