|
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 |
|