1. CETIS-TechDIS:Accessibility SIG.
Global Collaborations in Accessibility Specifications.
Glasgow.
(Some Alphabet Soup).
27th October 2003.
Andy Heath,

2. Me. Sheffield Hallam Uni Teaching Computing Things.
History - CETIS, OU, UkEU, Ufi.
Worked on:
IMS:QTI, IMS:LIP, IMS:AccGuidelines, IMS:ACCLIP, IMS:ACCMD;
BSI:Assessments, BSI:eSupport.
Currently:
IMS:Accessibility;
BSI:IST/43;
ISO/IEC JTC1 SC36 wg3, wg4;
CEN-ISSS:WS-LT:APLR (Chair);
Euroaccessibility TF2 (related to conformance/WCAG).

3. Alternative Sub-titles.
Singing in harmony?
Singing from the same hymnsheet?

4. The Accessibility Picture.
Great diversity:
Disabilities and needs;
Devices;
Assistive Technology:
Wide range, specialised, low level interfaces.
Approaches:
Bespoke approaches, Operating systems, applications….
Standards and Guidelines:
No shortage.
Need to reduce the complexity and obtain greater cohesion:
Co-operation on the pieces.

5. A Big Picture: Global Collaboration
Many organisations, a few of which are:
IMS:Accessibility (main forum);
CEN-ISSS WS-LT APLR;
DCMI;
IEEE (LOM);
EARL (WAI ER group);
W3C (e.g. WCAG, CC/PP etc.);
INCITS V2 (URC);
Etc.
Different groups at different stages:
Some collaborations will bear immediate fruit, some longer term.

6. Dublin Core Conference: Seattle Oct 03.
We all collaborated presenting workshop sessions.
Working group meetings on the detail.
Doing the work within IMS but shared harmonised effort.
Working with open processes.
Detailed work continues since then.

7. The Current Major Pieces.
Learner Info (ACCLIP)
Conformance
(EARL, WCAG)
Content (Meta-data ACCMD)
Content to the Learner
Customised
(transformed/selected)
Conformant (Accessibility is known)
Under construction
Wcag > 2.0
There (1.0)
IMS
IMS/CEN
W3C

8. The Future: A Vision. Content to the Learner Conformance (EARL, WCAG)
Learner Info (ACCLIP)
Conformance
(EARL, WCAG)
Content (Meta-data ACCMD)
Content to the Learner
Customised
(transformed/selected)
Conformant (Accessibility is known)
W3C Device Profiles
INCITS V2
Glue together
IMS
IMS/CEN
W3C
Wcag 1.0 /2.0/?

9. ACCLIP/MD Stuff. ACCLIP – Learner accessibility preferences.
ACCMD – Meta-data relating to content to enable:
• Initial discovery of material with appropriate accessibility support;
• Discovery of appropriate alternate or augmentative representations and resources for discovered material;
• Appropriate application response with the control and display of learning objects to individualized user accessibility preferences.

10. ACCLIP (AccessForAll).
Accessibility for LIP (Learner information Package) or ACCLIP.
How do I want/need things to be displayed?
How do I want/need things to be controlled?
What content alternatives, equivalents or helpful tools do I want/need?
In what context?

11. Accessibility Metadata (ACCMD).
Extensions to existing specifications.
Application Profiles for accessibility?
Including controlled vocabularies;
Amenable to machine processing;
More global than most application profiles (not closed system or community).
Information model plus bindings to existing specs.
Do we need to recommend a new LOM Element?

12. ACCMD Information about: 1. Conformance to accessibility standards.
2. Information that corresponds to ACCLIP:
What type of content is it?
Can it transform in the necessary way?
Is there an equivalent for it? Or is it an equivalent?
Is it an enabling tool? What kind?

13. A Piece of the Conceptual Plan:
Name
Description
LOM
DCMI ……
…….
…..
avoidRed
Avoid the use of red to display information ?
……..
testingCon-formance
Who, what, when etc.

14. Conformance. There are different kinds e.g.:
Runtime behaviour, to a specification, to application profile rules, to WCAG.
One form - a link to an EARL RDF Statement detailing tests run on an object:
What do we roll up?
How do we roll up (or execute)?...How do we know something conforms to say WCAG X.Y or whatever?
LOM/DC differences.

15. LOM and DC Suppose from EARL we get:
Conforms to X;
Certified by A;
Doesn’t conform to X;
Certified by B.
General difference DC flat, LOM structured:
Well-known;
Do we adopt different solutions (best for each)?
LOM/DC convergence?

16. CEN-ISSS: APLR. Scopes and potential scopes:
Application profile(s) of LOM to work with IMS: ACCLIP (AccessForAll) and others:
European context.
Measurable stuff?
UK (and other?) contributions.
Learning Styles for Cognitive Disabilities?

17. APLR:Outputs.
General application profile/binding of an accessibility profile of the LOM.
Similar to e.g. Celebrate, CanCore, UK LOMCore.
Multiple for different scopes – how do we combine the scopes?
Consistent with International work on application profiles/Metadata exchange and conformance programmes.

18. APLR Process. Email list discussion and document archive.
Funded Drafting.
Funded conference call process (UfI-sponsored).
Liaison with other lists, experts, organisations.
European Context.
On-board - TechDis UK, UfI UK, CERTH Greece, CEN-ISSS WS-LT.

19. UK Need for cohesion around a common solution (DDA/SENDA).
Potential for UK lead in APLR European Standards.
Everyone wins.
If you can contribute please join us:
Or me or Peter Rainger:

20. Pulling Pieces Together.
How do multiple scopes fit together?
Fragmentation, e.g. Projects in UK:
Need to harmonise with the developing cohesive picture, and feed experience forwards;
Gain from experiences of all in the context of worldwide work on interoperability of Meta-data systems;
IMS:VDEX;
BSI: Interoperability between metadata systems used for learning, education and training;
IMS: International Conformance Programme/ Application profiles.
SC36.

21. Diversion: Some Questions.
What is important?
Specific vocabularies/taxonomies?
How Meta-data sets relate together architecturally?
Conformance architectures for accessibility and quality assurance for other purposes?
Andy’s answer for accessibility – we need to do some pieces to find out.

22. Getting Off the Ground. IMS:ACCMD underway.
WS-LT:APLR - NOW/early November:
Conf calls and drafting – one call per week;
ACCMD context and issues:
Representation issues with LOM and drafting;
Pulling related work together and in:
European requirements issues.
Developing scopes:
Measurability;
Content Metadata for cognitive impairment:
E.g. dyslexia.

23. This Week’s Issues. The FRBR problem.
Where does Meta-data on what this stuff is (Audio, Video, Text...) go in the LOM?
4.1 Format may be not the right place:
Mime types;
Could have multiple Format entries;
Annotation, classification;
New LOM element?

24. Please Contribute to Our Efforts.
Thankyou.