[Accessforall] Proposed plan for the preferences working group (incl. context & device task forces)

Gregg Vanderheiden gv at trace.wisc.edu
Sat Jul 21 14:42:18 UTC 2012

Thanks for this Gottfried.   We are going to be setting up the REGISTRY server so this will help

Do we have final  (for the near future) defined fields for Preferences?   We seemed to be close but I don't remember a sign off.  

When done lets gather them all on the REGISTRY page 

One is set up at  http://wiki.gpii.net/index.php/REGISTRY

The current contents are below.  


Gregg Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Director Trace R&D Center
Professor Industrial & Systems Engineering
and Biomedical Engineering
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Co-Director, Raising the Floor - International
and the Global Public Inclusive Infrastructure Project
http://Raisingthefloor.org   ---   http://GPII.net


The full name of the REGISTRY is  (we need to give it a long name as well as the short name.
Very short name
Short name
Descriptive Name
Here is a long version -- but we need to see if we can shorten without losing any important parts???
"REGISTRY of COMMMON TERMS for use in describing and matching needs/preferences/permission to available materials, settings, solutions (devices, software, services) 

The purpose of the REGISTRY is to encourage and enable all stakeholders to use the same terms when describing the same things (the same concept and value range) with regard to user need/preference/permission sets in the User Need/Prefrence Set server.    The purpose, format (and maintenance?) of the REGISTRY will be defined in more detail by ISO 24751 REVISION (now underway).  
[edit]Why is?

Why is it important for stakeholders to use common terms?
If everyone uses the same terms, then it is easier for matchmakers to understand the meaning of the terms and to
adjust them when new conditions occur, or
translate them when a new device occurs, or
merge them if multiple people must use a device at the same time
Why is it called a SET and not a PROFILE
First because the term USER and PROFILE in the same phrase suggests that it is a profile of the user rather than what they want/need/prefer the world about them to look or behave like
Second because there is sensitivity by some people about storing profiles about them (or about people with disabilities)
Third, because SET is a better descriptor.  A person may have different sets of preferences or permissions that they might invoke one of at any time.
Why is the term PERMISSION introduced here
Some solutions (software or services) require permission in order to use them.   Either they are commecial and the user needs to have paid for them (or someone has to have) or they are restricted for some reason (only people with certain qualificatations can use the service) (e.g. belong to a class like 'legally blind" or "belong to XXXX Church which provides the service"). The permission is needed both by the matchmaker to know that that solutions is available to the user (perhaps only in that environment) and by GPII to invoke the service.
[edit]What is:

User Need/Preference/Permission Set
This is what used to be called a User Preference Profile.  It is a set of preferences (for solutions and/or settings) that a person needs or prefers along with permissions (to use commercial or restricted solutions). A person may have many sets that they define for different uses, locations, tasks, levels of fatigue, or any other dimension where they 
 ISO 24751 is a standard also referred to asAccess For All that <need good short description here>.
ISO 24751 is currently undergoing revision to move to this new REGISTRY format.  For more information see  <what is the best URL for overview of status etc?>


There is one entry for each COMMON TERM   (this is a REGISTRY of COMMON TERMS)
The common terms may be used in different ways. For example any term could be used in describing one or more of the following
type of solution   ( software, service  )
aspect of solution  (setting, feature )
aspect device   ( feature, constraint, status )
aspect of environmental  ( lighting, auditory )
measurable or reportable (by user) aspect of user  (e.g. status: tired,  excited (where this would affect abililties) )    <we need to think about this one>
Other context  ( time of day,    )
Each record has the following fields.  The table lists the fields and which ones are used when the COMMON TERM is used in different ways
(in the end it may turn out that all uses use all fields but this is to determine that) 

              FIELDS	Alias	Preference	Context	Device	Permission

Number (generated by database but not used)	<Auto: Not Used>	<Auto: Not Used>	<Auto: Not Used>	<Auto: Not Used>	<Auto: Not Used>	<Auto: Not Used>
IsCore	<illegal>	X	X	X	X	
Local Unique ID	<illegal>	X	X	X	X	
Value Space	<illegal>	X	 ?	 ?	X	
Default Value	<illegal>	X	 ?	 ?	 ?	
AliasOf (only used if Alias and only field in Alias)	X	<illegal>	<illegal>	<illegal>>	<illegal>	<illegal>
Description	<illegal>	X	X	X	X	
Status	X	X	X	X	X	
Notes	X	X	X	X	X	

On Jul 21, 2012, at 5:02 AM, Gottfried Zimmermann wrote:

> Hi everybody involved in the preferences work of GPII,
> summer break is approaching, and some of us may already be on vacation.  I would like to propose the following time plan for our further work on preferences and needs within GPII and Cloud4All:
> ·         Tue Jul 24, 12:00 UTC (=2pm CET): Final Context Task Force call.  Goal: Define a structure for storing context related terms in a registry, so that these terms can be used in the conditions part of user preferences.  I will prepare a proposal for discussion.
> ·         Thu Jul 26, 14:00 UTC (=4pm CET): Final Device Task Force call.  Define a structure for storing device related terms in a registry, so that these terms can be used in the conditions part of user preferences.
> ·         Tue Jul 31, 12:00 UTC (=2pm CET): Joint call of the overall Preferences working group (incl. context and device task forces), and the Cloud4All A103.1 group on context-related profile modification rules (this group is led by Andres Iglesias).  This joint call will be some kind of "handover" between the groups, so that the work on context within Cloud4All can move on.
> For August, I don't plan to have any calls – due to summer break. 
> In September, we might need further calls for support of the ISO/IEC 24751 editors group.  This may include discussion of a maintenance process for the registry (i.e. determination of an initial set of core terms, and approval of future applications on terms).  Maybe Jutta (as chief editor) can let us know when she wants to have our input on this.
> Is this plan reasonable?  - Comments are welcome.
> Thanks,
> Gottfried
> ___________________________________________________
>  Prof. Dr. Gottfried Zimmermann
>  Professor Mobile User Interaction
>  Access Technologies Group, Germany
>  Phone +49 7121 790806
> ___________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> Accessforall mailing list
> Accessforall at fluidproject.org
> http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/accessforall

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/pipermail/accessforall/attachments/20120721/a571bdd0/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 7318 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/pipermail/accessforall/attachments/20120721/a571bdd0/attachment-0001.bin>

More information about the Accessforall mailing list