Review meeting

1. MyUI Ontology Draft Andreas Schmidt, Heiko Haller FZI Research Center for Information Technologies Karlsruhe, Germany Review Meeting, Brussels, July 14, 2010

2. Ontologiesandtheiruse Twoperspectives: sharedunderstandingof a domainofinterest(Uschold & Grüninger 1996) explicit specificationof a conceptualization(Gruber 1993) Ontology-centereddesign 2

3. Ontologies in myUI In myUI: describingpreferences, impairments etc. ofthe end user („user model“) describingcapabilitiesofdevices (withrespectto UI adaptation) describing environmental andothercontextualfactor Purpose enablerun-time adaptation guide design-time activities 3

4. Iterative Approach 4 Standards Wouldthisinformationchangethewaywewouldliketoadaptthe UI? adaptation requirements & strategies device UIdesign sensors SCENARIOS Whataredevicerequirements/constraints? Whatarewelikelyabletocapture? Standards Standards

5. Startingpoint 5 reusing

6. Ontology Overview: Preferences and Impairment

7. Ontology: Hierarchy of Disabilities

8. Hierarchy of Disabilities (Detail)

9. Additional contextualfactorsidentified (smallsubset) 9

10. Disability Profiles Doris mobility impairment 0.8 Doris right hand weakness 0.9 Doris presbyopia 0.6 Arthur mobility impairment 0.7 Arthur manual impairment 0.4 Arthur visual impairment 0.8 Arthur myopia 0.5 Thomas h.f. hearing impairment 0.8 Thomas colour blindness 1.0

11. Personal Preferences Doris preferred text angle 0.024* Doris preferred input device big-button remote Doris preferred volume 0.2 Arthur preferred text angle 0.07* Arthur preferred input device voice Arthur preferred volume 0.7 Thomas preferred input device keyboard Thomas preferred text angle 0.01* *) fraction of vertical visual angle (0.01 ≈ 28pt at a distance of 50cm).

12. Interface Profiles Profile1 (default colour based visual with limited text scaling) max. visual impairment 0.4 (relies mainly on visual interaction) max. font size 80 max. color blindness 0.2 (uses color as vital part of design) Profile2 (voice feedback) max. hearing impairment 0.3 (relies on audio feedback) max. anterograde amnesia 0.7 (AP needs to remember question) max. slow reactions 0.4 (AP needs to react sequentially) Profile3 (very large buttons) max. visual impairment 0.8 (compatible with very weak vision) max. font size 300 (huge letters) max. anterograde amnesia 0.9 (AP needs to remember context)

13. Preliminary Interaction Scenario Doris Device encounters Doris at 50cm distance System checks device’s interaction profiles for compatibility with user disabilities and preferences System tells device to use the best fitting profile (no. 1) of the possible profiles (1,2,3) System tells device to set preferred text size to 67pt (0.024 at 50 cm) Device adapts accordingly […later…] Device detects Doris has moved to armchair at 250cm distance System re-calculates required font size to maintain text viewing angle (335pt). System checks device’s interaction profiles for compatibility with updated requirement (Profile1 cannot handle font sizes > 80pt). System tells device to use the best fitting profile (no. 2) of the possible profiles (no. 2,3) Device switches to audio output, adjusts the volume according to the ambient noise level

14. Summary Iterative approachtoontologymodelingfollowingtheontology-centered design methodology First phase: „ontologyasmediatingartefact“ (Second phase: ontology a formal specificationforautomation) Currentstatus: First iterationscompletedwith afirstdraftoftheontology Mainlyfocused on theuserprofileandimpairments Reusingthevocabularyfromthe SOPRANO/openAALontology Next steps closerinvestigationintoadaptivityrequirements 14

15. Questions? andreas.schmidt@fzi.de heiko.haller@fzi.de

16. Existing OpenAALOntology