Dr. Dimitrios Tzovaras CERTH/ITI Greece Harmonisation Methodology of Accessibility Components
<ul><li>Objectives </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Implementation of a harmonized accessibility methodological approach applied to s...
<ul><li>Overview of the objectives </li></ul>Harmonized Methodology (HAM) 1 9 8 7 6 11 12 13 14 2 3 4 5
<ul><li>HAM Components </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Disability and user groups. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ICF Classification. </...
<ul><li>Disabilities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>There are as yet  no universally accepted categorizations  of disability, despi...
<ul><li>Example of Disabilities (Main type – Subtype) </li></ul>HAM Components
<ul><li>ICF Classification mapping </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ICF provides a concrete classification of impairments of the body...
<ul><li>ICF Classification mapping </li></ul><ul><ul><li>We mapped ICF Classification with the aforementioned list of disa...
<ul><li>Interaction limitations mapping </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Based upon an adaptation of the “Barrier Walkthrough” method...
<ul><li>Correlation of the interaction limitations and disability types   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>We mapped  the disability ...
<ul><li>Assistive technologies mapping   </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Description of the correlation between specific disability ...
<ul><li>Accessibility Guidelines </li></ul><ul><ul><li>AREA A: Web applications (Web Content) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><...
<ul><li>AREA A: Web Content </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WCAG 2.0 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>12 Guidelines organized under 4 ...
<ul><li>Mapping Web Content Guidelines to Disabilities </li></ul>HAM Design Guidance
<ul><li>AREA B: Mobile Applications </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Accessible mobile applications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Genera...
<ul><li>AREA B: Mobile Applications </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mapping  Mobile Application Guidelines to Disabilities </li></ul...
<ul><li>AREA C: Web Services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Three accessibility layers form the basis for the Accessible Web Servic...
<ul><li>AREA C: Web Services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mapping  Web Services Guidelines to Disabilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul...
<ul><li>AREA D: Description Languages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The application must be able to process the user inputs and pr...
<ul><li>AREA D: Description Languages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mapping  Description Languages  Guidelines to Disabilities </l...
<ul><li>Major step in  software development products  accessibility. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>New concise and integral me...
<ul><li>Foreseen added value </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ability of extension of the HAM in wide range of application areas (web...
<ul><li>Objective </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To define universal objective accessibility assessment metrics . </li></ul></ul><u...
<ul><li>The output of HAM </li></ul>Best Practices Catalogue <ul><ul><ul><li>ACCESSIBLE  </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><...
Best Practices Catalogue – Web Applications
Best Practices Catalogue–Mobile Applications
Best Practices Catalogue – Web Services
Best Practices Catalogue – Description Language
ACCESSIBLE Ontology
ACCESSIBLE Ontology
ACCESSIBLE Ontology
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

2 Harmonisation of Accessibility Components in the Context of “ACCESSIBLE” Project

880 views

Published on

The current presentation presents the Harmonized Methodology that has been developed in the context of ACCESSIBLE project in order to link critical accessibility components. ACCESSIBLE “Accessibility Assessment Simulation Environment for New Applications Design and Development” is a three year STREP Project of the 7th EU Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development (FP7), that aims to define an overall European Assessment Simulation Environment making extensive use of the latest available IT technologies and concepts. Upon the basis of an overall harmonized design and structure, the developed methodology will evolve all types of disabilities that are targeted in the project, the ICF classification, the interaction limitations of these disabilities, the assistive technologies used and the respective guidelines in each ACCESSIBLE area (web applications, mobile applications, web services and Description languages) and will correlate them in such a way that any user can navigate among them in an easy and seamless way.

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
880
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2 Harmonisation of Accessibility Components in the Context of “ACCESSIBLE” Project

  1. 1. Dr. Dimitrios Tzovaras CERTH/ITI Greece Harmonisation Methodology of Accessibility Components
  2. 2. <ul><li>Objectives </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Implementation of a harmonized accessibility methodological approach applied to software development and design of accessible new applications and services. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assist developers through all steps of the development lifecycle. </li></ul></ul>Harmonized Methodology (HAM)
  3. 3. <ul><li>Overview of the objectives </li></ul>Harmonized Methodology (HAM) 1 9 8 7 6 11 12 13 14 2 3 4 5
  4. 4. <ul><li>HAM Components </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Disability and user groups. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>ICF Classification. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interaction limitations. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Assistive technologies. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accessibility standards & guidelines. </li></ul></ul>HAM Overview
  5. 5. <ul><li>Disabilities </li></ul><ul><ul><li>There are as yet no universally accepted categorizations of disability, despite efforts towards that goal . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>HAM is based on the disabilities that W3C has proposed, but we also have enhanced the aforementioned list. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The disabilities are categorized according to the Main type (impairment) that they belong to. </li></ul></ul>HAM Components
  6. 6. <ul><li>Example of Disabilities (Main type – Subtype) </li></ul>HAM Components
  7. 7. <ul><li>ICF Classification mapping </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ICF provides a concrete classification of impairments of the body structures, which ensures no overlapping. </li></ul></ul>HAM Components b1646 Problem-solving b1645 Judgement b1644 Insight b1643 Cognitive flexibility b1642 Time management b1641 Organization and planning b1640 Abstraction b164 Higher level cognitive functions
  8. 8. <ul><li>ICF Classification mapping </li></ul><ul><ul><li>We mapped ICF Classification with the aforementioned list of disabilities </li></ul></ul>HAM Components
  9. 9. <ul><li>Interaction limitations mapping </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Based upon an adaptation of the “Barrier Walkthrough” methodology. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Focus on the barriers instead of the accessibility principles. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>A barrier is any condition that hinders the user's progress towards achievement of a goal, when the user is a disabled person . </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Identification of all possible barriers. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Explanation of the functional limitations that derive from each disability type and sub-type. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Presentation of the points that should be checked in order to cover all possible dysfunctions of a disability type. </li></ul></ul>HAM Components
  10. 10. <ul><li>Correlation of the interaction limitations and disability types </li></ul><ul><ul><li>We mapped the disability types with the interaction limitations. </li></ul></ul>HAM Components
  11. 11. <ul><li>Assistive technologies mapping </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Description of the correlation between specific disability type and existing ICT user technologies, including assistive technologies . </li></ul></ul>HAM Components
  12. 12. <ul><li>Accessibility Guidelines </li></ul><ul><ul><li>AREA A: Web applications (Web Content) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>WCAG 2.0 (W3C) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>AREA B : Mobile applications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>MWBP (ACCESSIBLE) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>AREA C : Web Services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Web services guidelines (ACCESSIBLE) </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>AREA D: Description languages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Description languages guidelines (ACCESSIBLE) </li></ul></ul></ul>HAM Components
  13. 13. <ul><li>AREA A: Web Content </li></ul><ul><ul><li>WCAG 2.0 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>12 Guidelines organized under 4 principles </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Perceivable </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Operable </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Understandable </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Robust </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Three priority levels </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Level A </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Level AA </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Level AAA </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>HAM Design Guidance
  14. 14. <ul><li>Mapping Web Content Guidelines to Disabilities </li></ul>HAM Design Guidance
  15. 15. <ul><li>AREA B: Mobile Applications </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Accessible mobile applications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>General-purpose usability guidelines applied to the mobile applications domain. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mobile Web applications guidelines . 12 Guidelines organized under 4 principles </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>W3C Mobile Web Best Practices (MWBP) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The two level structure narrows MWBP into a subset of checkpoints that are machine verifiable, called MobileOK Basic Tests. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The checkpoints are aligned into 5 Best Practice Headings </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>HAM Design Guidance
  16. 16. <ul><li>AREA B: Mobile Applications </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mapping Mobile Application Guidelines to Disabilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Define Mobile Accessibility Guidelines (MAG) with a three-step methodology. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>1 st STEP: mapping between MWBP and WCAG2.0. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>2 nd STEP: leverage this mapping to associate MWBP to disabilities. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>3 nd STEP: define a subset of MWBP checkpoints that can be applied to non-Web scenarios. </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>HAM Design Guidance
  17. 17. <ul><li>AREA C: Web Services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Three accessibility layers form the basis for the Accessible Web Service accessibility evaluation. </li></ul></ul>HAM Design Guidance <ul><ul><ul><li>“ in-Level” categorization. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Mandatory guidelines (e.g. L1m). </li></ul></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Not Mandatory guidelines (e.g. L2). </li></ul></ul></ul></ul>
  18. 18. <ul><li>AREA C: Web Services </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mapping Web Services Guidelines to Disabilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Follow the instructions of the web applications disability mapping and the interaction limitations. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>In complement with the WCAG mapping the superset of checkpoints that have to be checked in the context of Web Accessibility is settled. </li></ul></ul></ul>HAM Design Guidance
  19. 19. <ul><li>AREA D: Description Languages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The application must be able to process the user inputs and providing them with appropriate output content. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2 layers form the basis for the Accessible SDL application evaluation . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Basic Accessibility Layer </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Extended Accessibility Layer </li></ul></ul></ul>HAM Design Guidance <ul><ul><li>A set of techniques that can be used to check whether an already developed SDL application belongs to a specific class were defined. </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. <ul><li>AREA D: Description Languages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mapping Description Languages Guidelines to Disabilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>According to the web applications disability mapping and the interaction limitations . </li></ul></ul></ul>HAM Design Guidance
  21. 21. <ul><li>Major step in software development products accessibility. </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>New concise and integral methodology for assessing different software application types and their level of accessibility, with established or under development guidelines. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Correlation of all the components that are related to accessibility for people with disabilities and linking with the core of the ACCESSIBLE HAM, the disability type and the ICF classification. </li></ul>Innovation
  22. 22. <ul><li>Foreseen added value </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ability of extension of the HAM in wide range of application areas (web applications, web services, mobile web, SDL). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Generic oriented methodology able to be adapted in other areas and include new guidelines. </li></ul></ul>Added Value
  23. 23. <ul><li>Objective </li></ul><ul><ul><li>To define universal objective accessibility assessment metrics . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Correlation of the ACCESSIBLE components. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Disability type. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ICF classification. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Functional limitations. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Assistive technologies. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Accessibility guidelines. </li></ul></ul></ul>Best Practices Catalogue Best practices catalogue
  24. 24. <ul><li>The output of HAM </li></ul>Best Practices Catalogue <ul><ul><ul><li>ACCESSIBLE </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>guidelines </li></ul></ul></ul>
  25. 25. Best Practices Catalogue – Web Applications
  26. 26. Best Practices Catalogue–Mobile Applications
  27. 27. Best Practices Catalogue – Web Services
  28. 28. Best Practices Catalogue – Description Language
  29. 29. ACCESSIBLE Ontology
  30. 30. ACCESSIBLE Ontology
  31. 31. ACCESSIBLE Ontology

×