• Subgroup's web site
• Executive summary
• Link to Subgroup's area on the Secretariat's Projects Database
• Significant accomplishments
• Significant challenges
• Expected challenges
• Previous year's meetings
• Next year's meetings
• Liaison activities
• Membership and Officers
• Future Trends
• Other administrative information

---

1. Executive Summary

2. Significant Accomplishments

The Alternative Interface Access Protocol (AIAP) is a set of standards for the discovery, selection, configuration, and operation of user interfaces and options.  These standards could apply to personal devices, stand-alone or networked systems, and services or devices (targets).  The AIAP conveys information about user interface content and functionality; user preferences; target capabilities; and user commands.  It allows alternative interfaces to be accommodated or constructed, in real-time if necessary, to provide fundamental access to computing services and information regardless of any limitation of the user.

There are 4 ways that AIAP is currently envisioned to provide a means for users to change the user interface:
• By using an alternate user interface component instead of the native user interface component.
• By allowing a person to use a complete alternate user interface (which includes its own alternate input, control and display mechanisms) instead of the native input, control and display mechanisms on the product (a "Universal Remote Console").
• By allowing the user to cause their characteristics or user interface preferences to be communicated to the target product (either directly or by providing a code which the device uses to look up the user preference or characteristics) where the target product changes its own user interface behavior based on the user preferences or needs.
• By allowing the user to cause new user interface software to be determined and downloaded onto the target device directly or indirectly.


We are currently concentrating on the Universal Remote Console variant (described under bullet 2, above, AIAP-URC).  We have a working draft of the AIAP-URC specification being used to support the reference implementations.

This specification will define a standard interconnection protocol that allows users to control a mass market device/service (target) from another device.  A key purpose of this specification is to address the needs of people with disabilities to control mass market products from special Assistive Technologies (AT) (such as is called for in recent government and industry initiatives).

The user interacts with the target through the Universal Remote Console (URC).  The URC may be a dedicated device, but will more often be a feature running on a computer, a cell phone, an Assistive Technology, or other device.  (This functionality is also associated with the term “Accessor”, although accessor is a more general term that also includes alternate interface components).

The “Universal” in “Universal Remote Console” refers to the fact that the user’s URC will work with all targets whose abstract User Interface complies with the AIAP-URC specification.

As of our most recent meeting, #9, September 30 to October 4, we have adopted a new model for user interface functionality.   The new model employs a more flexible framework that accommodates the notion of abstract user interfaces in a slightly different way, without sacrificing the achievements of our previous work.   The  new model is well aligned with related standards and technologies, such as XForms and other Web service technologies.  V2 is currently working on the modification to the current AIAP specification to reflect the new model.

Some of the reasons for the new model are:

• Design the standard to be more useful for natural language interfaces.
• Design the standard to be more open for rich media and future extensions.
• Make the standard more appealing for device manufacturers.
• Harmonization with other standards, particularly in the Web services area

The key to this approach is that the target projects an abstract version of its user interface using the AIAP-URC specified XML based language to URC devices connected to it via a network protocol. This abstract version of the user interface must contain no assumptions as to the presentation mode (visual, auditory, or tactile) of the user interface.  (Hinting to facilitate particular presentations may be provided, but the presentations in all modes must be comprehensible without use of the hints.)  The AIAP standard defines the requirements for the underlying network to facilitate the interaction between the URC and the target.  The URC software takes the abstract user interface (UI) and renders it as a concrete UI on the user’s remote console device.  The concrete UI may be visual, speech-based, braille-based, or in some other form.

The burden on the target manufacturer is relatively light if their product is network controllable: The manufacturer just has to commission one abstract UI for their product.  This one abstract UI can then accommodate the needs of a wide range of users with a variety of devices chosen to meet their preferences and abilities.  Examples include someone watching television and using a URC as a “remote control” to their entertainment center; or someone turning the home security system on or off from their bedroom or from their office; or someone with a disability using a URC as an alternate interface to a product they cannot otherwise access.

If the manufacturer wishes to provide customized concrete UIs to optimize aesthetics and usability for certain classes of users or devices, the manufacturer may provide a concrete UI in addition to the abstract UI.

Three participating organizations have demonstrable reference implementations. Three other organizations have indicated interest in developing such implementations.  These implementations use different technologies and are used to ensure that the specifications are implementable and generic.

The following presentations and publications were authored by various  V2 particpants:

• Zimmermann, G.; Vanderheiden, G.; and Gilman, A. (2002).  Universal Remote Console – Prototyping for the Alternate Interface Access Standard.  7th ERCIM Workshop “User Interfaces for All”, Oct. 23-25, 2002, Paris, France.
• Zimmermann, G., & Vanderheiden, G. (2002).  Technical Requirements for a Delivery Context Independent User Interface Model.  Position Paper for the W3C Workshop on Device Independent Authoring Techniques, Sep. 25-26, 2002, SAP University, St. Leon-Rot, Germany.  Available on the WWW: http://www.w3.org/2002/07/DIAT/posn/trace.html.
• Zimmermann, G., Vanderheiden, G., & Gilman, A. (2002, May).  Universal Remote Console Prototyping of an Emerging XML Based Alternate User Interface Access Standard.  Poster at the World Wide Web Conference 2002 (WWW 2002), May 7-11, 2002, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA.
• Zimmermann, G., Vanderheiden, G., & Gilman, A. (2002, April).  Prototype Implementations for a Universal Remote Console Specification.  CHI 2002 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, proceedings pp. 510-511.  April 20-25, 2002, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
• Zimmermann, G., Vanderheiden, G., & Gilman, A. (2002, March).  Universal Remote Console – Prototyping The Alternate Interface Access Standard.  CSUN’s 17th Annual International Conference on Technology and Persons with Disabilities, March 18-23, 2002, Los Angeles, CA.  Paper available on the World Wide Web: http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf2002/proceedings/141.htm.

3. Significant Challenges

Retaining and adding to membership.

4. Expected Challenges

• We will be losing 5 to 7 member organizations next year.  We have gained 5 organizations and lost 5 organization in the last year.  If our recruiting remains flat or drops at all we will lose critical mass
• Many other countries have become very interested in ensuring that telecommunications, electronic devices, and information technologies are accessible and usable by all, including people with disabilities.  As a result, several countries are aggressively seeking solutions in the same problem space that INCITS/V2 has been charged with addressing.  ISO/IEC JTC1 has addressed this interest by establishing Sub Committee 35, User Interfaces.

During the last year, V2 requested that INCITS reconsider its recommendation that the U.S. not participate in ISO/IEC/JTC1/SC 35, see IT/2002-0158. In our subsequent comments, IT/02-0434, V2 provided several reasons why the U.S. must participate in SC35:
• at least 4 INCITS TCs have some overlap of scope with the program of work of SC35,
• V2 is working in an area that requires International cooperation, and
• to be most effective, standards developed by V2 will need to become International to be most useful to our implementors and U.S. participation on SC35 will be essential for this to happen.
In addition, during discussion at one of INCITS's meetings, it was mentioned that there is a trend to adopt strong protective standards in areas covered by SC35 that may by adopted as mandatory by the European community.  We will be unable to represent U.S. interests in this area, unless we are participating at the Working Group level.
V2 has found informal ways of working with SC35 (through personal contacts with SC35 participants who work for multi-national companies).  This clearly is not the way to accomplish what we need.
We have been seeking support for funding U.S. participation in SC35 as requested by INCITS, but we may need to wait for another institutional funding cycle to get the required funds.

5. Committee Activities

a. Previous Year's Meetings:

6. November 27 - 28, 2001; Redmond, WA
7. March 3 - 5, 2002; Nashville, TN
8. June 25 - 26, 2002; Minneapolis, MN
9. September 30 - October 4, 2002; Gaithersburg, MD

b. Next Year's Planned Meetings:

10. January 13 - 14, 2003; Orlando, FL
11. March 17 - 18, 2003; Los Angeles, CA
12. June 17 - 18, 2003; Atlanta, GA
13. October ? - ?, 2003; Madison, WI

6. Liaison Activities

1. W3C/WIA. Common interest in needs and preferences based selection of services or rendering. Maintain continuing exchange of information through overlapping membership.
2. The Accessibility Forum. Common interest in AT / E & IT Interoperability. Maintain continuing exchange of information through overlapping membership.
3. UPnP Forum. Common interest in selection of services or features. Maintain continuing exchange of information through overlapping membership.
4. ISO/IEC JTC1 SC 36 Learning Technologies. Based on supporting users with different Human Computer Interface needs and abilities.
5. The Accessibility Working Group Dublin Core Metadata Initiative. Common interest in the representation of accessibility needs and preferences of individuals and the accommodation capabilities of intelligent devices providing services.
6. IEEE Web Engineering Best Practices Guideline (P2001). Based on common interest in accessibility of data and information. The IEEE WEG Committee has agreed to work jointly on Web accessibility needs and preferences issues and vocabulary. We have established a formal liaison with this committee.

1. L8 Metadata. Coordination and technical support and advice on metadata related specifications used in the AIAP and other projects.
2. M1 Biometrics. There is a common interest in the representation of certain human user characteristics.
3. T4 Security Techniques. There are a number of security and privacy issues related to the deployment and use of the AIAP and other V2 specifications.  We intend to request advice and support from T4 as we consider these issues.

7. Membership and Officers

a. Officers:

b. Membership:

AFB

AT&T

Dept. of Commerce

Free Desktop Software Working Group

IBM

MICROSOFT

Madentec

National Industries for the Blind

ORACLE (Advisory)

Katie Haritos-Shea, Consultant

International Center for Disability Resources on the Internet

Rehabilitative Engineering Research Center (RERC) on Communication Enhancement

RERC on Wireless Technologies
Observer (declared member)

SUN Microsystems

SHARE, Inc.

The MITRE Corp. (Advisory)

TRACE Center, U of Wisconsin

Unisys Corporation

XEROX (Advisory)
 

Liaison Members (2)

ISO/IEC JTC1 SC 36 Learning Technologies

Dublin Core Metadata Initiative

8. Future Trends and Related Technical Activities

Another rapidly emerging segment of technology is that of pervasive computing, whereby intelligent devices of all sorts are distributed into the living environments of home, shopping, and other activities involving mobile systems. Of particular note are the numerous offerings in:

• Unified messaging/mobile computing (eFax, Hotmail), providing a central information net-access point for one's messaging needs;
• Net-based information stores for people's core documents/pictures (Freespace, Apple iTools);
• Transcoding/reformatting services for various devices (Everypath, YahooMobile, IBM);
• Home automation & multi-access point management (Sony, Echelon, Microsoft, IBM);
• Personalization of content & related marketing data (Vignette, NetPerceptions).

Whereas these services look towards increasing access for user's critical information, they rely on end-users to configure, change, or maintain configurations for their access.    In addition, the burden of incorporating multiples of these offerings into a daily regimen is taxing on the user, and certainly highly error-prone.  The key shortfall, however, rests in the personalization of the user's interaction with each of these separate systems, and the changes and dynamics that individual users' will need to effectively coordinate and use these services effectively.  This can be made especially difficult for a user with a disability or who is aging.

To make these systems truly usable, service providers must bridge the user's networks (office, mobile, home); the user's devices (phone, web-pad, computer); and the user's information spaces (email, documents, news/information).

Key to interaction across devices and information spaces is the ability to provide the solution in a ubiquitous form factor.  Two related initiatives are needed:

• Spreading the user preference initiators throughout devices and information systems via involvement by system-on-a-chip manufacturers, device manufacturers, and implementors of mobile code technology.
• Appending additional services onto application servers or platforms to provide a richer, personalized user experience.

Moreover, there is an abundant market for third-party developers to build products that will carry out interface transformations for content, appearance and user controls and to build applications that lend themselves to interface selection or transformation.   This trend is reinforced by networking technologies such as Universal Plug and Play, Jini (Sun), or HAVi, which provide a platform for discovery and control in a network of devices and services.  V2 is making sure that these technologies can be harnessed for implementing its standard.

The AIAP is also being seen as part of the solution for meeting the Access Board procurement standards for electronic and information technology, pursuant to the provisions of Section 508 of the 1998 amendments to the 1973 Rehabilitation Act.  Thus, some equipment procured by the Government could have the AIAP specified as meeting some of the requirements of the 508 procurement standards.

Numbers from analysts range up to 1 billion wireless devices shipped by 2004; 10 million digital homes by 2004; and 41 million telecommuting/ SOHO workers by 2003.  The total addressable market of an enabling technology such as interaction personalization can be estimated at 100 million people in North America & Europe within 3 years.  Related investments in wireless data, personalization, and unified services are in the multi-billion dollar area.  There are 70 million adults aged 50+; this is expected to grow to 115 million in the next 25 years.  Of the present 70 million, 13 million have Internet access (SeniorNet and Charles Schwab), or 16.5% of total online population, and they spend 30 hours per month online, 47% higher than the national average.  A significant portion of these users has difficulty in using a mouse and navigating the Web, and operating other applications.  About 8% of the total U. S. population has a disability that limits their ability to use a computer or to have effective access to the Internet.  People with disabilities are under-represented in the work force and make up a considerable portion of the population that is at low-income levels.

9. Other Administrative Information

V2 has no written procedures for meeting or other committee activities.