Getting Too Old For This

Review Assignment

2005-11-13T08:22:00.000-08:00

Accessibility: The Current Situation and New Directions
(Ariadne, Issue 44)

In his paper, “Accessibility: The Current Situation and New Directions” (2005), Kevin Carey tries to outline what needs to be done to enhance accessibility to digital information systems by disabled people. The first part of his paper deals with definitions of terminology he will use later in his paper. Most relevant are his definitions of ‘Accessibility’ and ‘Disabled People’. Carey defines accessibility simply as “the capability of a system to cater for the needs of disabled people.” Techniques such as audio/video description, print modification, signing, simplification, speech synthesis and sub-titling are offered as examples of accessibility methodologies. “The core of people who experience accessibility problems as the primary barrier in their use of digital information systems are classifiable as ‘Disabled’.” Carey suggests disabling syndromes can be grouped into four clusters: Learning/cognitive/developmental; Physical/motor; Deafness/hearing impairment; Blindness/visual impairment. Carey proceeds to discuss five areas that he feels need to be addressed in order to enhance accessibility.
First, Carey suggests, “concentrate on digital data design and creation to see that it accords with basic rules.” Carey offers three principles for creating accessible digital information: create multi-modally and enable multi-modal interaction; enable customization and simplification; and enable channel and user interface choice. Secondly, Carey suggests the development of programmable user interfaces. He sees the user interface as one of the greatest obstacles to accessibility and the chief problem with all user interface control panels, including keyboards, numeric keypads, remote control devices and screens is that they are not standard. The open market in design has had disastrous albeit unintended consequences for disabled people and has left them increasingly impotent as technology has miniaturized and become less standardized. Carey’s answer to this problem is “the individual, all purpose, programmable user interface which can be ‘BlueToothed’ to any processor and/or receiver.” This leads directly to Carey’s third point which is to “take advantage of cable-free user interfaces, particularly screens and keyboards.” Carey supports the use of “Bluetooth” specifications for the creation of wireless personal area networks (PANs). It provides a way to connect and exchange information between devices via a secure, low-cost, globally available short-range radio frequency (Wikipedia, 2005). Such a programmable user interface would allow for the development of functionality based on user need and user skill at a relatively low cost, according to Carey. Fourthly, Carey discusses the specific issues of accessibility in the context of formal learning and suggests the installation of data provision systems that respond to user behaviour. The exploding quantity of information available in addition to the way that data choices are displayed presents serious problems for disabled people. For most of us, the solution is to learn how to define a search, but Carey argues that a more satisfactory solution is the use of a system that adjusts to user behaviour over time. “Such a system would ‘learn’ what the user is interested in and the professional level of that interest.” Carey feels that this is the most important assistance that disabled people can be given. Finally, Carey supports the provision of blended learning facilities that allow students and tutors to share on-screen displays and discuss work in progress. These environments are important to disabled people who are sometimes thwarted by what most people might consider to be trivial barriers.
Carey contends that none of these proposed solutions is science fiction. “All components for effective accessibility in a converged data ecology exist but they need to be creatively combined.” (Carey, 2005) It is interesting to note at this point that Carey makes no mention throughout his paper or in his references to the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) (http://www.w3.org) and its Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) (http://www.w3.org/WAI) whose mission is to develop strategies, guidelines and resources to make the Web accessible to people with disabilities. While Carey promotes the idea of ‘creative collaboration’ (Carey, 2005), his references refer to articles primarily written by him. On the other hand, the W3C and WAI are sponsored by an international consortium of member organizations, including Industry Canada’s Assistive Devices Industry Office. Through their membership in W3C and the WAI working group, Common Look and Feel (CLF) standards adopted by all Government of Canada (GoC) websites are aligned with W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines and ensure equitable access to all content on GoC Web sites. (CLF, 2004) In a paper previously submitted by this writer on the Government of Canada Website project, the issue of interoperability between GoC Web sites was raised. W3C addresses the need for interoperable technologies (specifications, guidelines, software and tools) on its website in an understandable and ‘open’ way. (W3C, 2005) In fact, viewing the W3C and WAI websites helps to put Carey’s discussion into context. While Carey makes it sound like no one but he and his company HumanITy is doing anything about the issue of accessibility, in fact it is through the W3C that Internet accessibility has become a global issue. Software and system designers from around the world are invited to submit comments and contribute to the work of the W3C and its working groups in an open source type model.
“The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.” (Berners-Lee, T. cited in WAI, 2005) The development of universal accessibility guidelines ensures that anyone can obtain content regardless of the technologies they use. While the WAI’s Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (1999) seem to have been recognized by the international standards community, Carey does not acknowledge that they exist. As these guidelines continue to be tested and evolve over time, developers and users will become more proficient in applying them to Internet usage. Carey’s hope that “industries emerging from the analogue era can learn from each other and can, in addition, develop new standards” (Carey, 2005) may be closer than he thinks.

References
Bluetooth (2005). Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/bluetooth

Carey, K. (2005). Accessibility: The Current Situation and New Directions. Ariadne,
Issue 44. Retrieved from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue44/carey/intro.html

CLF for the Internet – Accessibility (2004). Retrieved from
www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/clf-nsi/inter/inter-01-00_e.asp

W3C World Wide Web Consortium Homepage (2005). Retrieved from
http://www.w3.org/

Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Homepage (2005). Retrieved from
http://www.w3/org/WAI/

Project Profile Assignment

2005-10-03T12:05:00.000-07:00

Government of Canada Core Subject Thesaurus
http://en.thesaurus.gc.ca/intro_e.html
October 3, 2005

In 1999, the Government of Canada, in its Speech from the Throne, promised “…to be known around the world as the government most connected to its citizens, with Canadians able to access all government information and services on-line at the time and place of their choosing.” (Renaud, n.d.). This commitment was followed by the birth of the Government On-Line initiative in 2000 and has led Canada to becoming a world leader in e-service delivery. In their 2005 report, Accenture, an international consulting firm that annually studies global eGovernment maturity, ranked Canada as first in eGovernment implementation, for the fifth year in a row (Riley, 2005).

The Government On-Line (GOL) initiative led to a number of standards being developed (Renaud, n.d.). Firstly, the development of the “Common Look and Feel” standard set guidelines for the structure and appearance of all Government web sites. Then, the Metadata Working Group recommended adopting Dublin Core as the core metadata standard for resource discovery. Once a metadata standard was adopted, the group recommended a Controlled Vocabulary standard for the management of electronic information. The Government of Canada Core Subject Thesaurus was adopted as the default thesaurus to be used for the “subject” () metadata element within federal government web resources (Renaud, n.d.). The Core Subject Thesaurus (CST) is based on the Depository Services Program Subject Thesaurus which was a source of subject descriptors applied to bibliographic records in the Government of Canada Publications Database (http://www.dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Thesurus/index-e.html). Before these standards existed, departments developed and used their own thesauri and vocabularies in order to meet their own needs and to make their own information available. However, there was very little “interoperability” (Renaud, n.d.). Interoperability has become a guiding principle of this initiative. It requires the consistent application of standard metadata elements and vocabulary values across the Government of Canada (GoC) domain, increasing access to everyone and in particular the citizens of Canada. Thomas Riley (2005), in his article “Successful eGovernment in Canada” comments that “52 per cent of the 76 percent of Canadians online, who go to the Canadian sites for services, and the multitude of people who receive better services because of the attention to eGovernment initiatives, are the beneficiaries.”

The Government of Canada Core Subject Thesaurus, the controlled vocabulary standard, was developed as a source of standardized terminology for the indexing and retrieval of Government of Canada information resources. Its use ensures that any particular concept or subject will always be represented in the same way across the Government of Canada domain. For example, to describe a web resource which provides “essential information in a field of study” indexers have agreed and would be required to use the value “handbooks”, not “guides”, “manuals” or “user guides”. Renaud (n.d.), in his paper “Metadata and Controlled Vocabularies in the Government of Canada: A Situational Analysis” (http://purl.org/metadataresearch/dcconf2004/papers/Paper_20.pdf ) describes some broad principles that were agreed upon and applied to the selection of terms. These principles are that terms be “high level, representing broad concepts that may be further expanded into detailed schemes; applicable, representing content types found on a significant number of Government of Canada Websites and/or are of substantial significance to Government of Canada programs/services; recognizable, that is, understandable by implementers and indexers; unique, so that no terms will be a synonym of an existing term; and client-centric, ensuring that concepts and terminology used in presentation layers would be tested with the public.”

The Core Subject Thesaurus Web site itself is intended to be used by those who have responsibility for building, enhancing, or revising Web sites within the Government of Canada (http://en.thesaurus.gc.ca/into_e.html). The Thesaurus is described as “a controlled vocabulary arranged in a known order (not necessarily alphabetic) in which equivalence (USE; USE FOR), homographic (variant spellings), hierarchical (Broader Term; Narrower Term) and associative (Related Term) relationships among terms are clearly displayed and identified by standardized relationship indicators. A thesaurus contains synonyms, or “lead-in” terms that may be used as the conceptual point of entry by searchers or indexers, instead of the designated indexing terms. As such, they “lead” users to the “preferred’ term that is consistently used in indexing information resources that contain the subject or concept that the user is looking for.” These are the basic characteristics of any thesaurus. The Government of Canada Core Subject Thesaurus fits this description. It is comprehensive and relatively easy and straightforward to use and has been developed in accordance with the standards set out for monolingual and multilingual thesauri by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (Renaud, n.d.). Since all Government of Canada web resources must be available in both official languages, English and French, both versions of the Core Subject Thesaurus have been developed and are maintained simultaneously.

As the Government On-Line initiative evolved, it took an all-government approach to e-service delivery, organizing services by category rather than on a department-by-department basis. This is reflected in the current Canada Site home page (http://www.canada.gc.ca) which offers “gateways” to three audiences: Canadians and Residents, Non-Canadians, and Canadian Businesses. Use of the controlled vocabulary of the Core Subject Thesaurus by all government departments ensures that anyone searching for information about a specific topic will find it more easily since subjects will be described using the same preferred terms each time they are indexed (http://www.collectionscanada.ca/8/4/r4-294-e.html). As the Government On-Line initiative continues to evolve, so will the Core Subject Thesaurus as new terms are being consistently added.

Helen McDonald, Chief Information Officer (CIO) for the Government of Canada, was recently asked by ‘eGov monitor’ (http://www.egovmonitor.com) what she thought the future held for Canadian eGovernment in the next few years. Ms. McDonald responded: “For us, the question is not where we go next with eGovernment. The question is how do we meet citizen needs for higher quality services and better value for money? Services need to be seamless across all channels – in-person, mail, phone and the Internet – and seamless across programs and jurisdictions.” The Core Subject Thesaurus will have a role to play as a controlled vocabulary standard that all government departments will use as they expand and revise their Web sites.

Resources

Depository Services Program Subject Thesaurus. Retrieved from
http://www.dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Thesaurus/index-e.html

eGovernment Leadership: High Performance, Maximum Value. Retrieved from
http://www/accentrue.com/xd/xd.asp?it=enweb&xd=industries\government\gove_ egov_value.xml

Government of Canada Core Subject Thesaurus. Retrieved from
http://en.thesaurus.gc.ca/intro_e.html

Implementing Controlled Vocabulary on Government of Canada Web Sites. Retrieved
From http://www.collectionscanada.ca/8/4/r4-294-e.html

Q&A: Helen McDonald, CIO, Government of Canada. Retrieved from
http://egovmonitor.com/node/1033

Renaud, G., Metadata and Controlled Vocabularies In the Government of Canada: A
Situational Analysis. Retrieved from http://purl.org/metadataresearch/dcconf2004/papers/Paper_20.pdf

Riley, T., Successful eGovernment in Canada. Retrieved from
http://egovmonitor.com/node/709

Survey of Government Implementation of DC. Retrieved from
http://dublincore.org/groups/government/survey-200106.shtml

Acronyms

2005-09-28T09:10:00.000-07:00

Thanks to all my FMS (Fellow Mature Students) for responding to my blog. Thanks to everyone else who has responded as well. There was a suggestion that there should be a support group for mature part-time students, but I think you're right Christine, who would have the time? However, I would be happy to offer my blog as a virtual support group for anyone who wishes to comment on their experience as a "mature" student.

I was thinking about acronyms after class the other day. I must admit I was feeling rather overwhelmed. HTML, XML, DTD, XSLT, RSS, SQL... This is when I really start to feel that I'm geting too old for this. My brain does not want to absorb this stuff. For my Project Profile assignment I'm doing the Government of Canada Core Subject Thesaurus. Like every good government document, it is filled with acronyms. There's no way I can keep them all in my head! It takes me forever to read through the stuff, because I have to keep referring back to the definitions. It's like learning a new language every few months, with every new course I take!

Well, G2G (Got to go)!

Welcome to my Blog

2005-09-19T21:40:00.000-07:00

This is my first time blogging, so I'm a little nervous, but here we go.
I'll be using this blog for FIS1311 assignments, but I also hope to share some of my insights about being a "mature" student. I graduated with a BSc in Occupational Therapy in 1974. 1974! That's probably before some of you were born. Since then, I got married, had 2 children, and acquired a dog. My career has taken me in some very interesting directions, but this is not one that I anticipated. I'm in my 3rd year at FIS and with any luck I expect to be finished in Spring of 2007. Atleast I'll have a few good years before I have to retire. Am I getting too old for this? Maybe, but in the spring of 2007 it will still be Spring 2007 whether I have my degree or not, so why not?