GPII Roadmap

From wiki.gpii
Revision as of 12:04, 18 April 2012 by GreggVan (talk | contribs) (Created page with "=Areas of GPII needing research and development = #Computer Assisted Evaluation and User Preference Profile Creation ##One of the key aspects of the GPII is the ability for u...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

Areas of GPII needing research and development

  1. Computer Assisted Evaluation and User Preference Profile Creation
    1. One of the key aspects of the GPII is the ability for users to discover that there are things that would help them and to identify which techniques or services would help them.
    2. Research Area:
      1. Research on computer assisted evaluation of users with disability, literacy, digital literacy or aging related access issues to determine which types of features or services would address their needs. Tools for use by professionals to aid their evaluations as well as tools for people who cannot afford or reach a professional to use to do a best effort self or friend/family assisted evaluation. Research on effectiveness of tools identified/developed in increasing accuracy of professionals. Comparison of tools results and professional results for user or family/friend administered evaluation. Evaluation of importance of user confirmation (trial) of automated results – and best mechanism for users control of profile elements.
      2. This would probably take the form of a Wizard of sorts. Very friendly to user and profession (if present).
      3. Includes the ability for users to try out the features generically – and later specifically with particular commercial or open source packages.
      1. This is about a tool to assist Users and Professionals in discovering what things would help a user
        1. So this is a tool to be used by USERS to create their profiles
        2. Cumulative information from all profiles – would be useful to developers in planning and marketing.

2) Assistance on Demand a. Infrastructure and techniques for providing a wide range of assistance-on-demand (AOD). i. What is needed to support scalable deployment of such systems? ii. What is the range of assistance that can be deployed in an ‘on-demand’ basis? iii. What is the effectiveness/impact of AOD? Do specific measurable changes in user behavior or benefit result? For which types of AOD iv. What computer based AOD is possible and effective today? Tomorrow? v. Can AOD make users more independent? 1. Allow them to live more independently – at lower cost? Reduce load on spouse? 2. Allow them to travel more independently (distance and around town) b. DEVELOPER VS END USER i. This is about creating an infrastructure for both USER and VENDORS to provide AOD to users. ii. Vendors – can use the infrastructure to offer services commercially to users, (or students of schools, employees of companies, etc) iii. Users – can use it to create volunteer or peer support systems for providing assistance on demand to other users

3) Automated and Crowd sourced Media Access a. People who are deaf, hard of hearing, blind, have low vision, or have learning disabilities benefit from media that has captions and or audio descriptions. Although we know how to manually do captions and descriptions, the cost to do them for everything they are needed for (e.g. for education) is more than available in budgets, Research and tools are needed in order to create more effective and affordable mechanism for doing captions and descriptions. i. What are the best mechanisms or creating international federated searches to find captions in any language ii. Mechanisms to translate captions in language needed. iii. Role of crowd sourcing for correction of captions iv. Use of speech recognition, re-voicing and knowledgably participant aided caption correction in creating inexpensive captioning b. DEVELOPER VS END USER i. again this is an infrastructure activity. It is a way for other people to find or provide accessible media ii. users can use this infrastructure to find accessible media if it exists iii. vendors can use this infrastructure to provide services to make media accessible (e.g. adding captions or descriptions) iv. users can also volunteer to make media accessible for other users (e.g. volunteer effort to caption or describe media)

4) Document Conversion and translation pipelines a. Government and other agencies and companies are increasingly asked to make their documents available in multiple accessible formats. i. It would be much better if they could create on document that would act as a single source for all formats. (Daisy has done this first order – more needed) b. However it is too hard to teach people to mark up documents properly i. It would be better if they could just use any printed doc (or print file for a doc) and have the scanned and auto formatted ii. This is a machine recognition task that is beyond current state of the market / state of the art – when complex pages are fed into it like those generated by government agencies using old COBOL based systems. c. Users also get documents in a wide variety of forms. d. The key deliverable would be a “feed it any document – even with invisible table formatting that is broken across pages with footers – and have it properly pull out the text and structure and semantics and create a fully accessible html 5 page with ARIA markup. e. IF this is done it would save hundreds of millions of dollars worldwide f. It would also advance machine vision and sematic extraction. g. Coupled with an advance DAISY pipleline it would revolutionize document access and simplify the life of every person trying to create accessible documents. h. DEVELOPER VS END USER i. This is a parallel to number 3 above except this deals with documents rather than media. ii. It is a way for other people to find or provide accessible documents iii. users can use this infrastructure to find an accessible document if it exists iv. vendors can use this infrastructure to provide services to make documents accessible (change to braille or audio) v. users can also volunteer to make documents accessible for other users (change to braille or audio)

5) Development Environment/ WorkBench for Access Technologies and services a. The goal is to create an environment for developers of access technologies that parallels the environment created by Apple and Android. b. Key components of this Environment / workbench would need to be i. Tools that make it easy to create access solutions ii. Components and services for making access solutions iii. Localization tools to make it easy to translate into different languages, iv. A marketplace to make it easy to sell and reach worldwide (CLOUD4All is creating some of this ) v. Consumer and Expert network to make it easy to get good advice and input when developing access solutions and services c. This one can be a boon to developers and also greatly increase the number of research projects that actually get into users hands . d. DEVELOPER VS END USER i. this one is purely developer. It is about making it easier for developers to create market and support new solutions ii. users however can also be developers if we give them the right tools and the ability to link to programmers etc. that can realize their visions

6) Secure anonymous identification a. This would look at techniques that could be used by users to identify themselves without identifying themselves except when wanted i. Should not require any thinking on part of user – so can be used by elders and people with cog disabilities ii. Should allow pulling prefs from cloud based on this key – OR passing the prefs from the key iii. Probably wearable so elder doesn’t lose it iv. Work with computers today – but everything down to a thermostat in the future b. DEVELOPER VS END USER i. this is something that would be created by developers ii. but the primary target is users. The ability for a user to invoke their preferences without giving up their identity unless everyone needs to give up their identity for that activity.

7) Mechanism for people who need physical Interfaces a. This would look at the use of URC to allow users who need to use their own physical interfaces to automatically connect and use them in conjunction with cloud technologies i. Based off of ISO/IEC-24752 (same standard used in i2Home and a dozen other EC grants ii. Important for those needing interfaces that go beyond what the target device can provide iii. Good linkage to smarthome work. b. DEVELOPER VS END USER i. for this one it is important to distinguish between 3 players; mainstream manufacturers, accessibility vendors, and users ii. this would give mainstream manufacturers a way to address a much wider range of people with disabilities without having to either understand the disabilities nor understand how to accommodate them. By creating an interface socket they would allow people to bring their own interfaces along and plug them into the functionality of their product. Automatic interface generation tools could look at the interface socket and create an interface that would match the needs of a particular user. iii. Accessibility vendors can create different tools for automatically generating accessible interfaces. For common devices such as televisions, ovens, thermostats, etc. they could also create interfaces that are custom tuned 2 different types of disabilities but that can be used across products from different vendors. iv. Users would then be able to access a wide range of products in their environment from a single interface that they would carry with them. Since this device would generate the different interfaces it would provide individuals with a much more consistent way of accessing different products. This would include both different products of the same type (TVs), and different types of products. v. This is also a good mechanism for providing access to people with physical disabilities where you are not able to “download from the cloud” their interface because it includes physical components.

8) Ways to use the cumulative information from all users to improve individual performance a. With the tremendous information about users with different disabilities that will be in the system, anonymous analysis can determine new features or capabilities that would benefit a user i. Wisdom of the crowd ii. Provides advice or make suggestions for on user based on what other users like them have found successful iii. Good for novice or non-technical users who would otherwise not discover new things. iv. A lot of work needed but this will be increasingly important as the number of possible solutions grows so that there are too many for most to look through. b. DEVELOPER VS END USER i. developers could use this mass collection of information to better understand what consumers are actually doing. They could use this to design future products better, or they could use it to increase the runtime algorithms in their products on a live basis ii. users could also (using features built by developers) tap into this information to help them make better decisions about access, where to go c.

Areas of Research once phase 1 of GPII is up

1) Library ”AT as a service“ Implementation Development and deployment of an AT as service package for libraries and public access points. • This would be a great application of GPII and would save public agencies large amount of money while providing greater service to the diversity of patrons. • Patrons would get an eval (See #1 above) and get a profile (at library or clinc) • Libraries would have a pay-as-you-go lease on a wide range of software and services. They only pay for those that patrons use – and only while they are using them. • Users would sit down or roll up to a computer and it would automatically find the apps needed, load them, configure them and leave the user ready to go. DEVELOPER VS END USER

2) Initial rollout and test of GPII in 3 – 5 countries By the end of the CLOUD4All grant – we should, with the CLOUD4All and other research, have the components needed for an initial implementation of the GPII. It will not be a complete GPII but it will be phase I and it would be sufficient for an initial test in some early adopter European countries. The goal would be to test the utility of this approach in constrained areas across languages and cutures. Potential areas for the implementation would be a. With elders – to provide a much simpler way for them to invoke the features they need. This could demonstrate the easy of use and the ability to invoke alternate, simpler interfaces tuned to the abilities of the users. b. Libraries – see above DEVELOPER VS END USER

NOTE that #3 was mashed into #2 last time 3) Two other rollout items – things that could be online fast. Especially the AndDoc conversion though it requires completion of the research first. a. Assistance on Demand (if this is funded in time to be ready – it is one of the most powerful. b. Anydoc conversion service _(again if the research is ready in time under separate funding – this has the potential to save the most money for government agencies in making their materials accessible). The first two might be in a single implementation grant. The latter two could be in a separate one. I don’t think these grants are large enough to be implementation by themselves