|
Number |
Title |
Doc |
Country |
Description |
Who |
Status |
|
1 |
Add abstract model |
FM |
|
The Dublin Core, IMS <and CEN-ISSS??> accessibility working groups are in the process of harmonizing and adapting the specifications that are the basis of this standard. They are documenting the abstract model of the AccessForAll framework. Inclusion of this abstract model in this standard would improve the reader's understanding of the standard. |
DW once finalized by group |
|
|
2 |
Add UML model |
PNP |
|
Inclusion of a UML model and a data model in the style of ISO 11404 would be helpful. |
DW after abstract model |
|
|
3 |
Context |
PNP |
|
Remove 'context' from tables, add to normative Clause 3 |
AC |
done |
|
4 |
Update PNP info model |
PNP |
|
The addition of the AccessForAll Framework abstract model in Part 1 will define a base model for the PNP. The PNP's Information Model should be updated accordingly. Update the PNP Information Model to be an instantiation of the relevant classes of the abstract model including a defined vocabulary and encoding scheme. |
later: dependent on finalization of abstr. model |
|
|
5 |
|
|
|
do we need 'preference' and 'description' in all the terms? do we need to be that verbose? do we need two separate terms? if there's something higher up that explains which one this is talkign about, we should be able to use only one term. check with jake |
JT |
|
|
6 |
look up 11404 |
|
|
|
JT will ask david clement |
|
|
7 |
Use standard data model description |
PNP (and DRD?) |
|
Use standard way for data model description like ISO/IEC 11404 |
later |
|
|
8 |
Simplify the PNP model |
PNP, Clause 3 |
|
The model for recording a user’s needs and preferences is by nature complex; in some cases the use of detailed preference settings is required to carry critical information in an interoperable way. However, the project editors are urged to review the information model closely and determine where, if possible, the model can be made simpler while retaining all information needed to support the framework. |
not a specific task |
|
|
9 |
Specific request for textual-only input or graphical-only input |
PNP |
|
An attribute expressing the need for textual-only input should be included near but not within the keyboard enhancement preference set, and an attribute expressing the need for graphical-only input should be located near but not within the alternative pointing preference set. Use of the terms textual input device and graphical input device are preferred to the terms keyboard and mouse. The information model does not currently provide the ability for a user to indicate that they require use of a textual input device (such as a keyboard) or a graphical input device (such as a mouse or other pointing device), nor does it provide a way for the user to indicate if they cannot use either of these input devices. These are important preferences and should be captured in a simple structure related to, but not deeply nested in, the details that may be provided about assistive technology used to replace a standard keyboard or mouse. |
MR |
done |
|
10 |
clarify sentence "Metadata authoring tools are conformant if they assist in authoring Metadata that includes the elements in Part 3 of this standard." |
FM, P8 7 |
|
Is this a standard way for authoring tools are conformance? If yes then OK. Yes, within W3C especially, ATAG defines requirements this way. This sentence should be clarified. |
nothing to be done |
|
|
11 |
Clarify definition of 'disability': It should be made clear that the terms used may have different meanings in different cultures. The intended meaning should be clear and concepts should be more clearly defined, at the appropriate level of generality. |
FM, Clause 3 |
Ukraine |
Ukrainian NB supports development of multipart standard that addresses delivery needs of the individual learner. However, there are a number of issues that should be addressed before proceeding to the next stage, namely Ukrainian NB supports the approach to understand inability to benefit completely from educational resource as “mismatch” or “discrepancy” rather than individual trait. However, it may be inappropriate to preserve the term ”disability” for this purpose, as (a) it is still used in the CD documents in its traditional sense and (b) it complicates reading whereas some other term corresponding to “delivery mismatch” would be more straightforward. Ukrainian NB also suggests including “delivery” or similar expression in the definition, as current one covers political, language, educational level and topic issues as well.• Inclusion of “technically disabled” together with “physically disabled”. Ukrainian NB considers “access for all” as an issue that comprises many factors, including technical requirements to the delivery platforms. Alternate information sources for technically challenging learning resources would facilitate access to education for technically disadvantaged countries and thus contribute significantly to Access for All. Provision of that is included into Introduction, e.g. The standard is intended to address mismatches between personal needs and preferences caused by any number of circumstances including requirements related to client devices, environments, language proficiency or abilities. It is critical to address these issues as early as possible, as Part 1 is supposed to provide Framework and Reference model, thus overall picture should be clear even if all specific data elements cannot be provided simultaneously. |
JT will talk to the ukrainians will have a try at this |
|
|
12 |
Explain definition of disability |
FM, Clause 3.9 |
|
This needs a bit of expansion – something like "a resource that achieves the same learning goals as the original resource...." |
JT |
|
|
13 |
Redefine accessibility |
FM |
UK |
The UK is not convinced that this is the right definition for accessibility. A learning environment could be accessible to some people without having to adjust itself (e.g. by using the PC’s settings, ensuring that HTML is used correctly, alt tags added, etc). Also if this standard is going to be extended to describe non-digital resources (see Page 1, penultimate paragraph), then those resources may not be able to adapt themselves. Redefinition to make this clear is agreed. Adaptation, re-aggregation, substitution, etc may all be necessary and this will be made clear. |
JT |
|
|
14 |
Redefine accessibility |
FM, Clause 3.1 |
|
Perhaps this should read “educational resource offered” (see Page 6, Section 5.3, paragraph 1, which reads “the term disability has been re-framed as a mismatch between the needs of the learner and the resource offered”). |
JT |
|
|
15 |
Harmonize definition of accessibility |
FM, Clause 5.3 |
|
"In this multi-part standard, the term disability has been re-framed as a mismatch between the needs of the learner and the resource offered." "Accessibility, given this re-framing, is the ability of the learning environment to adjust to the needs of all learners." Again, the UK feels that this is not the right definition for accessibility (see comments on Section 3.1 accessibility above). |
JT |
|
|
16 |
Fix inconsistency |
FM, Clause 3.11 |
|
This does not match the definition given on Page 4, Section 3.9 disability (see comment above) but is perhaps more accurate. |
JT |
|
|
17 |
Clarify that Glossary contains non-normative terms |
FM, Clause 7.1 |
|
The status and purpose of this clause should be clearly identified, whether it is normative or informative. In any case it does not fit under clause 7. However, the value of the terminology is obvious, so it might better fit as Annex or independent supplementary document for this family of standards. Glossary contains non-normative terms - this should be made clear and be used in an N… document. |
AC change to informative annex, renamingto "alternative access terms" - check jutta's notes? |
done |
|
18 |
make the terminology applicable to needs and preferences for non-human agents in interactive environments. |
PNP, DRD |
US |
This may only require adjustments to the introduction and not to the attributes themselves. This will permit easier integration in the future when, as noted in the framework, additional sections may be added to the model. |
MR frank's comments? DRD suggestions? |
|
|
19 |
Add mention of mobile devices |
PNP, DRD |
|
There has been no mention of mobile learning or other similar devices, such as PDAs (Personal Digital Assistants). Perhaps they should also be mentioned in this standard. The introduction to Part 1 does make mention of “client devices” but there is no mention of this in Part 2. |
AH |
|
|
20 |
|
PNP, DRD |
|
The UK National Body is of the view that parts 2 and 3 (PNP and DRD respectively) may each require different approaches to conformance and that the editors should consider whether in the part 3 conformance should be separated from the vocabularies, detailed in a separate part or otherwise constructed so as to provide support for use cases where vocabularies are adopted in part or in easy combination with as yet undeveloped vocabularies and terms. |
AH want conformance statements to not reference specific vocabularies |
|
|
21 |
Elaborate on conformance statement |
PNP |
|
to identify conformance for each type of technologies. Alternate information sources for technically challenging learning resources would facilitate access to education for technically disadvantaged countries and thus contribute significantly to Access for All. |
JT will ask ukrainians to clarify |
|
|
22 |
Rewrite Conformance to not refer to other docs |
FM, Clause 7 |
|
It is recommended that paragraphs 2 and further be excluded from the final version of the document, as they refer to the independent documents. Restate this in Framework document to say there is no conformance for Part 1 but keep examples. |
JT |
|
|
23 |
Examples should be added in a note. 3.2 wording should be adjusted. |
FM, Clause 3? |
|
It is recommended that all terms and definitions be submitted to the Vocabulary WG for overview and harmonization with terms used by other groups. It is recommended to identify specific examples and contr-examples to clarify definitions of 3.1 and 3.2. So far, 3.1. defines feature of environment that does not have valid examples because of its generality “ ability to adjust to the NEEDs of ALL”, and 3.2 may lead to interpretation of adaptability as client-side feature. |
JT |
|
|
24 |
"technical disability" vs "physical disabilities" |
PNP |
|
Deal with inclusion of issues related to "technical disability" together with "physical disabilities". |
JT |
|
|
25 |
Explain how 'Linguistically neutral' should be 'have no implied linguistic interpretation' and reference 'value domains'. |
FM, Clause 6 |
|
It is not clear why and how linguistically neutral tokens for some terms (sub-clauses of clause 3) will facilitate multi-linguality for this family of standards. |
JT will check with jake - this was boilerplate text? |
|
|
26 |
Ukrainian use cases |
PNP |
Ukraine |
Ukrainian NB may provide “use cases” to illustrate technical needs in alternative deliveries or information about learning resource parameters. |
JT comment: remove the formatting, but still use it |
|
|
27 |
Clarify relationship with project 19786 |
FM |
|
Project editors should make an effort to harmonize with project 19786 in light of the recent documents on 19786. In particular, 19786 is intended to serve as the bundling technique for accessibility facets and 24751 is a set of facets; this relationship should be clarified. USNB suggests that the project editors add an informative annex clarifying this relationship. |
don't have to do, only for Dec. |
|
|
28 |
avoid overlap |
FM |
Japan |
Make sure that this project does not overlap or conflict with other accessibility project in JTC1 or ISO. |
MR will clarify; add statement similar to wcag comments? don't reference anything that's not FD in normative parts? ref sc35 sw accessibility |
|