Chair, INCITS/V2,
IT Access Interfaces Technical Committee
U.S. TAG
for ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 35 User Interfaces
--
William P.
LaPlant, Jr. | 4312 Birchlake Court; Alexandria, VA 22309-1208
Accessibility Engineer
|
Phone:
703-360-9184
--
mailto:blaplant@computer.org
I
am committed to Children inheriting a culture of unlimited possibilities;
Technology empowering miraculous lives.
1. Source of the Proposed Project
1.1 Title
Protocol to Facilitate
Operation of Information and Electronic Products through Remote and Alternative
Interfaces and Intelligent Agents: Universal Remote Console (URC)
1.2 Date Submitted
1.3 Proposer(s)
The
INCITS Information Technology Access Interfaces Technical Committee
(INCITS/V2).
Four organizations (IBM, NIST, Panasonic, & Unisys) are members of
both INCITS/V2 and the INCITS Executive Board.
2. Process Description for the Proposed Project
2.1 Project Type (Development or Revision)
Development ("D")
2.2 Type of Document
Standard
2.3 Definitions of Concepts and Special Terms
See attached: Terms
of Reference
2.4 Expected Relationship with Approved Reference Models, Frameworks,
Architectures, etc.
There
are a number of existing protocol and modeling activities being undertaken by
the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C),
and other consortia and specification development activities that we are
coordinating with. We are working with INCITS/L8 to ensure that necessary
data definitions, metadata, as well as shared data registry and registration
authority definitions are specified correctly and similarly with INCITS/T4 to
ensure that security and privacy issues are appropriately addressed.
2.5 Recommended INCITS Development Technical Committee
(Existing)
The INCITS
Information Technology Access Interfaces Technical Committee (INCITS/V2).
2.6 Anticipated Frequency and Duration of Meetings
INCITS/V2 meets 4 times a year at
various locations throughout the
2.7
Target Date for Initial Public Review (Milestone 4)
2.8 Estimated Useful
Life of Standard or Technical Report
At least 5 years.
3. Business Case for Developing the Proposed Standard or Technical Report
3.1 Description
This proposed American National
Standard will be one in a series supporting the development of Universal Remote Consoles (URCs). The goal of this set
of standards is to provide a framework of components that combine to enable
remote User Interfaces and remote control of network accessible electronic
devices and services through a Universal Remote Console (URC).
The V2 Technical Committee is developing a set of
standards for the discovery, selection, configuration, and operation of user
interfaces and options. The purpose of these standards is to facilitate
the development and deployment of a wide variety of devices (from different
manufacturers) that can act as Universal Remote Consoles (URCs) for an equally
varied range of devices and services (called "Targets"). In other words,
the standards will allow users to control any number of Electronic and
Information Technology devices in their environment.
The potential Targets include both devices and
services. They may range from things as simple as a light switch and
thermostats, to more complex items such as audio visual equipment, home
appliances, electronics in a car or other constrained or specialized
environment, web-based services, and any other devices or services that can be
controlled electronically (or via Communications or Information Technology --
CIT).
Targets may be in the same location as the individual
who desires to control the Target through the URC, or the Target can be at any
distance from the URC/user, as long as there is some type of network connection
between the URC and the Target. This is possible since a URC provides the
user with all of the necessary controls as well as the prompts and other
information displayed by the Target.
URC functionality could be provided by common devices
such as personal computing and Information Technology devices (e.g. laptops,
PDAs), telecommunications/WAP devices (e.g. cell phones), etc. They could also
be functions implemented in assistive technology devices, or they could be
devices that were specially built to function as Universal Remote
Consoles. They may also be devices that were built to function primarily
as Remote Consoles for a particular family of products (e.g. a Remote Console
designed to control components of an integrated home audio-visual system), but
would also serve to control any other device that is (V2) URC compatible.
They are similar in behavior to universal remote controls today, except
a) they have much greater function and scope,
b)
they synchronize with the Target in both directions (i.e. they can display the
current status of the Target),
c) they don't need to be programmed by
the user, (since they will automatically discover devices that are controllable
in a user's vicinity, discover the abstracted user interface of the Targets and
present it in the way preferred by the user), and
d) depending on the
networking technology used, they may be used out of sight of the product they
are controlling.
The output interfaces provided by URCs could be all
visual, all tactile, or all verbal in nature (or any combination thereof),
because the (V2) URC specifies the content of a Target user interface
independently from the form in which it is presented. Similarly and for
the same reason, the control interfaces may be by voice, keyboard, mouse or any
other available technology. Thus, URCs could be designed that an
individual could talk to and, through the URC, the user
could have speech access to any (V2) URC compatible Target listed above without
any of these Targets having any voice recognition or voice control functionality
themselves. A person might, therefore, be able to say to their URC,
"Record channel 12 and show me 'Law and Order'". Or they could be laying
in bed and say, "Set the alarm to
The purpose of the Universal Remote Console
specification efforts within V2 is to provide a framework of components that
combine to enable remote User Interfaces and remote control of
network-accessible electronic devices and services through a Universal Remote
Console (URC).
This document provides an overview of the (V2) URC
framework and its components. The following additional documents will be
defined in separate projects and specify specific languages and components of
the (V2) URC standard.:
3.2. Existing Practice and the Need for a Standard
No
standard or specification exists for defining a user interface (UI) for an
arbitrary electronic or information technology device or CIT service that is
independent of mode of UI rendition or instanciation,
along with the means for communicating such definitions and using them to
achieve remote control of the device or service. Such mode independent UI
descriptions together with robust specifications for UI rendition and instanciation
, defining a "Universal Access Bus," are essential for simplifying and
normalizing our increasingly complex, increasingly computer dominated
environment.
The existence of such a universal access bus for
consumer products, environmental controls, appliances, web services, etc. will
also benefit people with disabilities and the aging population
by helping organizations meet state and Federal requirements for
universal access to services, data, and information.
3.3.
Implementation Impacts of the Proposed Standard
3.3.1 Development Costs
This Standard will be developed
through the voluntary and cooperative efforts of INCITS Information Technology
Access Interfaces Technical Committee (INCITS/V2) members. No significant
development costs are anticipated.
3.3.2 Impact on Existing or
Potential Markets
There
is a burgeoning market already for personalization of content and appearance on
the World Wide Web, with regard to small handheld devices and for commercial
sales purposes. Companies such as IBM, ATG and Vignette, among many
others, have products and services for this explicit purpose. This market
is expected to grow considerably in the next 3 years. There is also a
movement in the Web to provide sites of interest to people with
disabilities (e.g., HalfthePlanet, WeMedia, CanDo) and the aging
population (e.g., SeniorNet), and attempts to bring the W3C WAI recommendations
into these. Alternative interfaces to meet these needs, whether
pre-constructed, adapted or constructed on the fly, are a form of
personalization.
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:
This follows the burgeoning of wireless technology from companies such as Qualcomm, Nokia, Ericsson, and Motorola, to mention but a few, as well as activities such as the Wireless Application Protocol Forum (WAPForum) and the Salutation Consortium in promoting applications for wireless devices. Handheld devices such as the 3Com Palm and the Pocket PC are targeted at the mobile computing environment. Another important factor in the wireless environment is the Bluetooth RF infrastructure for which a very substantial number of manufacturers are building compatible devices.
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:
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. Many of these already exist. Netscape has
released its Versions 6 browser which permits widespread modification of both
its operating interface and the content appearing on it, through a language
called XUL (extensible User interface Language). There is also another
language called User Interface Markup Language that uses Sun Microsystems’ Java
Swing for modifying rendering of interface elements. Both of these
languages are compatible with and expressible by the W3C language XML. Sun
is also pushing its Jini connection technology as a means of mediating access to
alternative interfaces (the proposed standards would run over Jini). Other
venues for the standard include the Salutation Consortium’s Salutation
architecture, HomeAPI/Universal Plug and Play, and other home networking
technologies.
3.3.3 Costs and Methods for Conformity Assessment
The document will contain
requirements for conformity pertaining to each component of the standard. These
requirements can be used to test conformance with the standard.
Conformance will be determined by industry
interoperability testing methods. The costs for such testing will be born
by the component (URC or Target) developer or
manufacturer.
3.3.4 Return on Investment
The return on
investment for this development is expected to be high, due to the complexity
and cost to individuals and their employing organizations of using the current methods of interface configuration in the
areas covered by the proposed Standard.
3.4 Legal Considerations
3.4.1 Patent Assertions
Calls have been made
to identify assertions of patent rights in accordance with the relevant INCITS,
ANSI and ISO/IEC policies and procedures. At this time, INCITS/V2 members are
unaware of any patent assertions that may be made.
3.4.2
Dissemination of the Standard or Technical Report
Drafts of this
document will be disseminated electronically. Dissemination of the final
Standard will be restricted as the document becomes the property of INCITS,
ANSI, or ISO/IEC.
4. Related Standards Activities
4.1 Existing Standards
There are no known
protocols at the Human Computer Interface.
4.2 Related
Standards Activity
HFES
ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 35 User
Interfaces
Note: as the U.S. TAG to
ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 35 User Interfaces, INCITS/V2 will be working closely with the
International community to ensure the broadest possible acceptance of the
standards. We intend to submit a parallel NP for development of a
multipart ISO/IEC International Standard.
4.3 Recommendations for
Close Liaison
W3C/WAI
Protocols and Formats WG
INCITS/L8
INCITS T4 (security)
UPnP
Jini
W3C RDF Core Working
Group
W3C
XForms Working Group
5. Units of Measurement used in the
Standard
Not Measurement Sensitive
1. Source of the Proposed Project
1.1 Title
Protocol to Facilitate
Operation of Information and Electronic Products through Remote and Alternative
Interfaces and Intelligent Agents: User Interface Socket
Description
1.2 Date Submitted
1.3 Proposer(s)
The INCITS Information Technology
Access Interfaces Technical Committee (INCITS/V2).
Four organizations (IBM, NIST, Panasonic, & Unisys) are members of
both INCITS/V2 and the INCITS Executive Board.
2. Process Description for the Proposed Project
2.1 Project Type (Development or Revision)
Development ("D")
2.2 Type of Document
Standard
2.3 Definitions of Concepts and Special Terms
See attached: Terms
of Reference
2.4 Expected Relationship with Approved Reference Models, Frameworks,
Architectures, etc.
There
are a number of existing protocol and modeling activities being undertaken by
the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C),
and other consortia and specification development activities that we are
coordinating with. We are working with INCITS/L8 to ensure that necessary
data definitions, metadata, as well as shared data registry and registration
authority definitions are specified correctly and similarly with INCITS/T4 to
ensure that security and privacy issues are appropriately addressed.
2.5 Recommended INCITS Development Technical Committee
(Existing)
The INCITS
Information Technology Access Interfaces Technical Committee (INCITS/V2).
2.6 Anticipated Frequency and Duration of Meetings
INCITS/V2 meets 4 times a year at
various locations throughout the
2.7
Target Date for Initial Public Review (Milestone 4)
2.8 Estimated Useful
Life of Standard or Technical Report
At least 5 years.
3. Business Case for Developing the Proposed Standard or Technical Report
3.1 Description
This proposed American National
Standard will be one in a series supporting the development of Universal Remote Consoles (URCs). The goal of this set
of standards is to provide a framework of components that combine to enable
remote User Interfaces and remote control of network accessible electronic
devices and services through a Universal Remote Console (URC).
The V2 Technical Committee is developing a set of
standards for the discovery, selection, configuration, and operation of user
interfaces and options. The purpose of these standards is to facilitate
the development and deployment of a wide variety of devices (from different
manufacturers) that can act as Universal Remote Consoles (URCs) for an equally
varied range of devices and services (called "Targets"). In other words,
the standards will allow users to control any number of Electronic and
Information Technology devices in their environment.
The potential Targets include both devices and
services. They may range from things as simple as a light switch and
thermostats, to more complex items such as audio visual equipment, home
appliances, electronics in a car or other constrained or specialized
environment, web-based services, and any other devices or services that can be
controlled electronically (or via Communications or Information Technology --
CIT).
Targets may be in the same location as the individual
who desires to control the Target through the URC, or the Target can be at any
distance from the URC/user, as long as there is some type of network connection
between the URC and the Target. This is possible since a URC provides the
user with all of the necessary controls as well as the prompts and other
information displayed by the Target.
URC functionality could be provided by common devices
such as personal computing and Information Technology devices (e.g. laptops,
PDAs), telecommunications/WAP devices (e.g. cell phones), etc. They could also
be functions implemented in assistive technology devices, or they could be
devices that were specially built to function as Universal Remote
Consoles. They may also be devices that were built to function primarily
as Remote Consoles for a particular family of products (e.g. a Remote Console
designed to control components of an integrated home audio-visual system), but
would also serve to control any other device that is (V2) URC compatible.
They are similar in behavior to universal remote controls today, except
a) they have much greater function and scope,
b)
they synchronize with the Target in both directions (i.e. they can display the
current status of the Target),
c) they don't need to be programmed by
the user, (since they will automatically discover devices that are controllable
in a user's vicinity, discover the abstracted user interface of the Targets and
present it in the way preferred by the user), and
d) depending on the
networking technology used, they may be used out of sight of the product they
are controlling.
The output interfaces provided by URCs could be all
visual, all tactile, or all verbal in nature (or any combination thereof),
because the (V2) URC specifies the content of a Target user interface
independently from the form in which it is presented. Similarly and for
the same reason, the control interfaces may be by voice, keyboard, mouse or any
other available technology. Thus, URCs could be designed that an
individual could talk to and, through the URC, the user
could have speech access to any (V2) URC compatible Target listed above without
any of these Targets having any voice recognition or voice control functionality
themselves. A person might, therefore, be able to say to their URC,
"Record channel 12 and show me 'Law and Order'". Or they could be laying
in bed and say, "Set the alarm to
The
Standard User Interface Socket Description specification provides the definition
of an XML language for User Interface Socket Descriptions which describe User
Interface Sockets suitable for use with (V2) URCs. A User Interface Socket
is an abstract concept that describes the functionality and state of a device or
service (target) in a machine interpretable manner. The purpose of the
User Interface Socket is to expose the relevant information about a target so
that a user can perceive its state and operate it.
This document provides
the specification for development of a Standard User Interface Socket
Description. The following additional documents have been defined in
separately and specify specific languages and components of the (V2) URC
standard:
* Universal Remote Console
(URC)
* Target Properties Sheet
*
Presentation Templates
* Resource Descriptions
3.2. Existing Practice and the Need for a Standard
No standard or specification exists for defining a user interface (UI)
for an arbitrary electronic or information technology device or CIT service that
is independent of mode of UI rendition or instanciation, along with the means for communicating such
definitions and using them to achieve remote control of the device or service.
Such mode independent UI descriptions together with robust specifications for UI
rendition and instanciation , defining a
"Universal Access Bus," are essential for simplifying and normalizing our
increasingly complex, increasingly computer dominated environment.
The existence of such a universal access bus for consumer products,
environmental controls, appliances, web services, etc. will also benefit people
with disabilities and the aging population by helping
organizations meet state and Federal requirements for universal access to
services, data, and information.
3.3. Implementation Impacts of the
Proposed Standard
3.3.1 Development Costs
This Standard will be developed
through the voluntary and cooperative efforts of INCITS Information Technology
Access Interfaces Technical Committee (INCITS/V2) members. No significant
development costs are anticipated.
3.3.2 Impact on Existing or
Potential Markets
There
is a burgeoning market already for personalization of content and appearance on
the World Wide Web, with regard to small handheld devices and for commercial
sales purposes. Companies such as IBM, ATG and Vignette, among many
others, have products and services for this explicit purpose. This market
is expected to grow considerably in the next 3 years. There is also a
movement in the Web to provide sites of interest to people with
disabilities (e.g., HalfthePlanet, WeMedia, CanDo) and the aging
population (e.g., SeniorNet), and attempts to bring the W3C WAI recommendations
into these. Alternative interfaces to meet these needs, whether
pre-constructed, adapted or constructed on the fly, are a form of
personalization.
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)
This follows the burgeoning of wireless technology from companies such as Qualcomm, Nokia, Ericsson, and Motorola, to mention but a few, as well as activities such as the Wireless Application Protocol Forum (WAPForum) and the Salutation Consortium in promoting applications for wireless devices. Handheld devices such as the 3Com Palm and the Pocket PC are targeted at the mobile computing environment. Another important factor in the wireless environment is the Bluetooth RF infrastructure for which a very substantial number of manufacturers are building compatible devices.
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 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. Many of these already exist. Netscape has
released its Versions 6 browser which permits widespread modification of both
its operating interface and the content appearing on it, through a language
called XUL (extensible User interface Language). There is also another
language called User Interface Markup Language that uses Sun Microsystems’ Java
Swing for modifying rendering of interface elements. Both of these
languages are compatible with and expressible by the W3C language XML. Sun
is also pushing its Jini connection technology as a means of mediating access to
alternative interfaces (the proposed standards would run over Jini). Other
venues for the standard include the Salutation Consortium’s
Salutation architecture, HomeAPI/Universal Plug and Play, and other home networking
technologies.
3.3.3 Costs and Methods for Conformity Assessment
The document will contain
requirements for conformity pertaining to each component of the standard. These
requirements can be used to test conformance with the
standard.
Conformance will be determined by industry
interoperability testing methods. The costs for such testing will be born
by the component (URC or Target) developer or
manufacturer.
3.3.4 Return on Investment
The return on
investment for this development is expected to be high, due to the complexity
and cost to individuals and their employing organizations of using the current methods of interface configuration in the
areas covered by the proposed Standard.
3.4 Legal Considerations
3.4.1 Patent Assertions
Calls have been made
to identify assertions of patent rights in accordance with the relevant INCITS,
ANSI and ISO/IEC policies and procedures. At this time, INCITS/V2 members are
unaware of any patent assertions that may be made.
3.4.2 Dissemination of the Standard or
Technical Report
Drafts of this document will be disseminated
electronically. Dissemination of the final Standard will be restricted as the
document becomes the property of INCITS, ANSI, or
ISO/IEC.
4. Related Standards Activities
4.1 Existing Standards
There are no known
protocols at the Human Computer Interface.
4.2 Related
Standards Activity
HFES
ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 35 User
Interfaces
Note: as the U.S. TAG to
ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 35 User Interfaces, INCITS/V2 will be working closely with the
International community to ensure the broadest possible acceptance of the
standards. We intend to submit a parallel NP for development of a
multipart ISO/IEC International Standard.
4.3 Recommendations for
Close Liaison
W3C/WAI
Protocols and Formats WG
INCITS/L8
INCITS T4 (security)
UPnP
Jini
W3C RDF Core Working Group
W3C XForms Working Group
5. Units of Measurement used in the
Standard
Not Measurement Sensitive
1. Source of the Proposed Project
1.1 Title
Protocol to Facilitate
Operation of Information and Electronic Products through Remote and Alternative
Interfaces and Intelligent Agents: Target Properties Sheet
1.2 Date Submitted
1.3 Proposer(s)
The INCITS Information Technology
Access Interfaces Technical Committee (INCITS/V2).
Four organizations (IBM, NIST, Panasonic, & Unisys) are members of
both INCITS/V2 and the INCITS Executive Board.
2. Process Description for the Proposed Project
2.1 Project Type (Development or Revision)
Development ("D")
2.2 Type of Document
Standard
2.3 Definitions of Concepts and Special Terms
See attached: Terms
of Reference
2.4 Expected Relationship with Approved Reference Models, Frameworks,
Architectures, etc.
There
are a number of existing protocol and modeling activities being undertaken by
the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C),
and other consortia and specification development activities that we are
coordinating with. We are working with INCITS/L8 to ensure that necessary
data definitions, metadata, as well as shared data registry and registration
authority definitions are specified correctly and similarly with INCITS/T4 to
ensure that security and privacy issues are appropriately addressed.
2.5 Recommended INCITS Development Technical Committee
(Existing)
The INCITS
Information Technology Access Interfaces Technical Committee (INCITS/V2).
2.6 Anticipated Frequency and Duration of Meetings
INCITS/V2 meets 4 times a year at
various locations throughout the
2.7
Target Date for Initial Public Review (Milestone 4)
2.8 Estimated Useful
Life of Standard or Technical Report
At least 5 years.
3. Business Case for Developing the Proposed Standard or Technical Report
3.1 Description
This proposed American National
Standard will be one in a series supporting the development of Universal Remote Consoles (URCs). The goal of this set
of standards is to provide a framework of components that combine to enable
remote User Interfaces and remote control of network accessible electronic
devices and services through a Universal Remote Console (URC).
The V2 Technical Committee is developing a set of
standards for the discovery, selection, configuration, and operation of user
interfaces and options. The purpose of these standards is to facilitate
the development and deployment of a wide variety of devices (from different
manufacturers) that can act as Universal Remote Consoles (URCs) for an equally
varied range of devices and services (called "Targets"). In other words,
the standards will allow users to control any number of Electronic and
Information Technology devices in their environment.
The potential Targets include both devices and
services. They may range from things as simple as a light switch and
thermostats, to more complex items such as audio visual equipment, home
appliances, electronics in a car or other constrained or specialized
environment, web-based services, and any other devices or services that can be
controlled electronically (or via Communications or Information Technology --
CIT).
Targets may be in the same location as the individual
who desires to control the Target through the URC, or the Target can be at any
distance from the URC/user, as long as there is some type of network connection
between the URC and the Target. This is possible since a URC provides the
user with all of the necessary controls as well as the prompts and other
information displayed by the Target.
URC functionality could be provided by common devices
such as personal computing and Information Technology devices (e.g. laptops,
PDAs), telecommunications/WAP devices (e.g. cell phones), etc. They could also
be functions implemented in assistive technology devices, or they could be
devices that were specially built to function as Universal Remote
Consoles. They may also be devices that were built to function primarily
as Remote Consoles for a particular family of products (e.g. a Remote Console
designed to control components of an integrated home audio-visual system), but
would also serve to control any other device that is (V2) URC compatible.
They are similar in behavior to universal remote controls today, except
a) they have much greater function and scope,
b)
they synchronize with the Target in both directions (i.e. they can display the
current status of the Target),
c) they don't need to be programmed by
the user, (since they will automatically discover devices that are controllable
in a user's vicinity, discover the abstracted user interface of the Targets and
present it in the way preferred by the user), and
d) depending on the
networking technology used, they may be used out of sight of the product they
are controlling.
The output interfaces provided by URCs could be all
visual, all tactile, or all verbal in nature (or any combination thereof),
because the (V2) URC specifies the content of a Target user interface
independently from the form in which it is presented. Similarly and for
the same reason, the control interfaces may be by voice, keyboard, mouse or any
other available technology. Thus, URCs could be designed that an
individual could talk to and, through the URC, the user
could have speech access to any (V2) URC compatible Target listed above without
any of these Targets having any voice recognition or voice control functionality
themselves. A person might, therefore, be able to say to their URC,
"Record channel 12 and show me 'Law and Order'". Or they could be laying
in bed and say, "Set the alarm to
The Standard Target Properties Sheet specification
efforts within V2 provides the definition of an XML document describing an (V2)
URC conformant Target so that it can be discovered by a Universal Remote
Console. The TPS provides the information needed by a URC to connect to
one of the Target's Portals in order to start a control session. A Target
has exactly one TPS.
This document provides the specification for
development of a Standard Target Properties Sheet. The following
additional documents have been defined in separate projects and specify specific
languages and components of the (V2) URC standard:
*
Universal Remote Console (URC)
* User Interface Socket
Description
* Presentation Templates
* Resource Descriptions
No standard or
specification exists for defining a user interface (UI) for an arbitrary
electronic or information technology device or CIT service that is independent
of mode of UI rendition or instanciation, along with
the means for communicating such definitions and using them to achieve remote
control of the device or service. Such mode independent UI descriptions together
with robust specifications for UI rendition and instanciation , defining a
"Universal Access Bus," are essential for simplifying and normalizing our
increasingly complex, increasingly computer dominated environment.
The existence of such a universal access bus for consumer products,
environmental controls, appliances, web services, etc. will also benefit people
with disabilities and the aging population by helping
organizations meet state and Federal requirements for universal access to
services, data, and information.
3.3. Implementation Impacts of
the Proposed Standard
3.3.1 Development Costs
This Standard will be developed
through the voluntary and cooperative efforts of INCITS Information Technology
Access Interfaces Technical Committee (INCITS/V2) members. No significant
development costs are anticipated.
3.3.2 Impact on Existing or
Potential Markets
There
is a burgeoning market already for personalization of content and appearance on
the World Wide Web, with regard to small handheld devices and for commercial
sales purposes. Companies such as IBM, ATG and Vignette, among many
others, have products and services for this explicit purpose. This market
is expected to grow considerably in the next 3 years. There is also a
movement in the Web to provide sites of interest to people with
disabilities (e.g., HalfthePlanet, WeMedia, CanDo) and the aging
population (e.g., SeniorNet), and attempts to bring the W3C WAI recommendations
into these. Alternative interfaces to meet these needs, whether
pre-constructed, adapted or constructed on the fly, are a form of
personalization.
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:
This follows the burgeoning of wireless technology from companies such as Qualcomm, Nokia, Ericsson, and Motorola, to mention but a few, as well as activities such as the Wireless Application Protocol Forum (WAPForum) and the Salutation Consortium in promoting applications for wireless devices. Handheld devices such as the 3Com Palm and the Pocket PC are targeted at the mobile computing environment. Another important factor in the wireless environment is the Bluetooth RF infrastructure for which a very substantial number of manufacturers are building compatible devices.
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:
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. Many of these already exist. Netscape has
released its Versions 6 browser which permits widespread modification of both
its operating interface and the content appearing on it, through a language
called XUL (extensible User interface Language). There is also another
language called User Interface Markup Language that uses Sun Microsystems’ Java
Swing for modifying rendering of interface elements. Both of these
languages are compatible with and expressible by the W3C language XML. Sun
is also pushing its Jini connection technology as a means of mediating access to
alternative interfaces (the proposed standards would run over Jini). Other
venues for the standard include the Salutation Consortium’s Salutation
architecture, HomeAPI/Universal Plug and Play, and other home networking
technologies.
3.3.3 Costs and Methods for Conformity Assessment
The document will
contain requirements for conformity pertaining to each component of the
standard. These requirements can be used to test conformance with the
standard.
Conformance will be
determined by industry interoperability testing methods. The costs for
such testing will be born by the component (URC or Target) developer or
manufacturer.
3.3.4 Return on Investment
The return on
investment for this development is expected to be high, due to the complexity
and cost to individuals and their employing organizations of using the current methods of interface configuration in the
areas covered by the proposed Standard.
3.4 Legal Considerations
Calls have been made
to identify assertions of patent rights in accordance with the relevant INCITS,
ANSI and ISO/IEC policies and procedures. At this time, INCITS/V2 members are
unaware of any patent assertions that may be made.
3.4.2
Dissemination of the Standard or Technical Report
Drafts of this document will be
disseminated electronically. Dissemination of the final Standard will be
restricted as the document becomes the property of INCITS, ANSI, or
ISO/IEC.
4. Related Standards Activities
4.1 Existing Standards
There are no known
protocols at the Human Computer Interface.
4.2 Related Standards Activity
HFES
ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 35 User
Interfaces
Note: as the U.S. TAG to
ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 35 User Interfaces, INCITS/V2 will be working closely with the
International community to ensure the broadest possible acceptance of the
standards. We intend to submit a parallel NP for development of a
multipart ISO/IEC International Standard.
4.3 Recommendations for
Close Liaison
W3C/WAI
Protocols and Formats WG
INCITS/L8
INCITS T4 (security)
UPnP
Jini
W3C RDF Core Working Group
W3C XForms Working Group
Not Measurement Sensitive
1. Source of the Proposed Project
1.1 Title
Protocol to Facilitate Operation of Information
and Electronic Products through Remote and Alternative Interfaces and
Intelligent Agents: Resource Descriptions
1.2 Date Submitted
1.3 Proposer(s)
The INCITS Information Technology
Access Interfaces Technical Committee (INCITS/V2).
Four organizations (IBM, NIST, Panasonic, & Unisys) are members of
both INCITS/V2 and the INCITS Executive Board.
2. Process Description for the Proposed Project
2.1 Project Type (Development or Revision)
Development ("D")
2.2 Type of Document
Standard
2.3 Definitions of Concepts and Special Terms
See attached: Terms
of Reference
2.4 Expected Relationship with Approved Reference Models, Frameworks,
Architectures, etc.
There
are a number of existing protocol and modeling activities being undertaken by
the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C),
and other consortia and specification development activities that we are
coordinating with. We are working with INCITS/L8 to ensure that necessary
data definitions, metadata, as well as shared data registry and registration
authority definitions are specified correctly and similarly with INCITS/T4 to
ensure that security and privacy issues are appropriately addressed.
2.5 Recommended INCITS Development Technical Committee
(Existing)
The INCITS
Information Technology Access Interfaces Technical Committee (INCITS/V2).
2.6 Anticipated Frequency and Duration of Meetings
INCITS/V2 meets 4 times a year at
various locations throughout the
2.7
Target Date for Initial Public Review (Milestone 4)
2.8 Estimated Useful
Life of Standard or Technical Report
At least 5 years.
3. Business Case for Developing the Proposed Standard or
Technical Report
3.1 Description
This proposed American National
Standard will be one in a series supporting the development of Universal Remote Consoles (URCs). The goal of this set
of standards is to provide a framework of components that combine to enable
remote User Interfaces and remote control of network accessible electronic
devices and services through a Universal Remote Console (URC).
The V2 Technical Committee is developing a set of
standards for the discovery, selection, configuration, and operation of user
interfaces and options. The purpose of these standards is to facilitate
the development and deployment of a wide variety of devices (from different
manufacturers) that can act as Universal Remote Consoles (URCs) for an equally
varied range of devices and services (called "Targets"). In other words,
the standards will allow users to control any number of Electronic and
Information Technology devices in their environment.
The potential Targets include both devices and
services. They may range from things as simple as a light switch and
thermostats, to more complex items such as audio visual equipment, home
appliances, electronics in a car or other constrained or specialized
environment, web-based services, and any other devices or services that can be
controlled electronically (or via Communications or Information Technology --
CIT).
Targets may be in the same location as the individual
who desires to control the Target through the URC, or the Target can be at any
distance from the URC/user, as long as there is some type of network connection
between the URC and the Target. This is possible since a URC provides the
user with all of the necessary controls as well as the prompts and other
information displayed by the Target.
URC functionality could be provided by common devices
such as personal computing and Information Technology devices (e.g. laptops,
PDAs), telecommunications/WAP devices (e.g. cell phones), etc. They could also
be functions implemented in assistive technology devices, or they could be
devices that were specially built to function as Universal Remote
Consoles. They may also be devices that were built to function primarily
as Remote Consoles for a particular family of products (e.g. a Remote Console
designed to control components of an integrated home audio-visual system), but
would also serve to control any other device that is (V2) URC compatible.
They are similar in behavior to universal remote controls today, except
a) they have much greater function and scope,
b)
they synchronize with the Target in both directions (i.e. they can display the
current status of the Target),
c) they don't need to be programmed by
the user, (since they will automatically discover devices that are controllable
in a user's vicinity, discover the abstracted user interface of the Targets and
present it in the way preferred by the user), and
d) depending on the
networking technology used, they may be used out of sight of the product they
are controlling.
The output interfaces provided by URCs could be all
visual, all tactile, or all verbal in nature (or any combination thereof),
because the (V2) URC specifies the content of a Target user interface
independently from the form in which it is presented. Similarly and for
the same reason, the control interfaces may be by voice, keyboard, mouse or any
other available technology. Thus, URCs could be designed that an
individual could talk to and, through the URC, the user
could have speech access to any (V2) URC compatible Target listed above without
any of these Targets having any voice recognition or voice control functionality
themselves. A person might, therefore, be able to say to their URC,
"Record channel 12 and show me 'Law and Order'". Or they could be laying
in bed and say, "Set the alarm to
The purpose of the specification on Standard Resource
Descriptions is to define the syntax for describing Resources relevant to the
user interface of a device or service ("Target"). These Resources include
text elements of a user interface such as labels, help text, keyboard shortcuts
(access keys) and associated words (keywords). They may also include
non-text elements such as icons, sounds or videos. A Resource makes
reference to a specific element in a Socket (described in a User Interface
Socket Description), to a specific element in a (V2) Target Properties Sheet, or
to a specific element in a (V2) Presentation Template.
This document
provides the specification for development of an AIAP Standard Resource
Description. The following additional documents have been defined
separately and specify other specific languages and components of the (V2) URC
standard:
3.2. Existing Practice and the Need for a Standard
No
standard or specification exists for defining a user interface (UI) for an
arbitrary electronic or information technology device or CIT service that is
independent of mode of UI rendition or instanciation,
along with the means for communicating such definitions and using them to
achieve remote control of the device or service. Such mode independent UI
descriptions together with robust specifications for UI rendition and instanciation
, defining a "Universal Access Bus," are essential for simplifying and
normalizing our increasingly complex, increasingly computer dominated
environment.
The existence of such a universal access bus for
consumer products, environmental controls, appliances, web services, etc. will
also benefit people with disabilities and the aging population
by helping organizations meet state and Federal requirements for
universal access to services, data, and information.
3.3.
Implementation Impacts of the Proposed Standard
3.3.1 Development Costs
This Standard will be developed
through the voluntary and cooperative efforts of INCITS Information Technology
Access Interfaces Technical Committee (INCITS/V2) members. No significant
development costs are anticipated.
3.3.2 Impact on Existing or
Potential Markets
There
is a burgeoning market already for personalization of content and appearance on
the World Wide Web, with regard to small handheld devices and for commercial
sales purposes. Companies such as IBM, ATG and Vignette, among many
others, have products and services for this explicit purpose. This market
is expected to grow considerably in the next 3 years. There is also a
movement in the Web to provide sites of interest to people with
disabilities (e.g., HalfthePlanet, WeMedia, CanDo) and the aging
population (e.g., SeniorNet), and attempts to bring the W3C WAI recommendations
into these. Alternative interfaces to meet these needs, whether
pre-constructed, adapted or constructed on the fly, are a form of
personalization.
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:
This follows the burgeoning of wireless technology from companies such as Qualcomm, Nokia, Ericsson, and Motorola, to mention but a few, as well as activities such as the Wireless Application Protocol Forum (WAPForum) and the Salutation Consortium in promoting applications for wireless devices. Handheld devices such as the 3Com Palm and the Pocket PC are targeted at the mobile computing environment. Another important factor in the wireless environment is the Bluetooth RF infrastructure for which a very substantial number of manufacturers are building compatible devices.
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:
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. Many of these already exist. Netscape has
released its Versions 6 browser which permits widespread modification of both
its operating interface and the content appearing on it, through a language
called XUL (extensible User interface Language). There is also another
language called User Interface Markup Language that uses Sun Microsystems’ Java
Swing for modifying rendering of interface elements. Both of these
languages are compatible with and expressible by the W3C language XML. Sun
is also pushing its Jini connection technology as a means of mediating access to
alternative interfaces (the proposed standards would run over Jini). Other
venues for the standard include the Salutation Consortium’s Salutation
architecture, HomeAPI/Universal Plug and Play, and other home networking
technologies.
3.3.3 Costs and Methods for Conformity Assessment
The document will contain
requirements for conformity pertaining to each component of the standard. These
requirements can be used to test conformance with the standard.
Conformance will be determined by industry
interoperability testing methods. The costs for such testing will be born
by the component (URC or Target) developer or
manufacturer.
3.3.4 Return on Investment
The return on
investment for this development is expected to be high, due to the complexity
and cost to individuals and their employing organizations of using the current methods of interface configuration in the
areas covered by the proposed Standard.
3.4 Legal Considerations
Calls have been made
to identify assertions of patent rights in accordance with the relevant INCITS,
ANSI and ISO/IEC policies and procedures. At this time, INCITS/V2 members are
unaware of any patent assertions that may be made.
3.4.2
Dissemination of the Standard or Technical Report
Drafts of this
document will be disseminated electronically. Dissemination of the final
Standard will be restricted as the document becomes the property of INCITS,
ANSI, or ISO/IEC.
4. Related Standards Activities
4.1 Existing Standards
There are no known
protocols at the Human Computer Interface.
4.2 Related
Standards Activity
HFES
ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 35 User
Interfaces
Note: as the U.S. TAG to
ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 35 User Interfaces, INCITS/V2 will be working closely with the
International community to ensure the broadest possible acceptance of the
standards. We intend to submit a parallel NP for development of a
multipart ISO/IEC International Standard.
4.3 Recommendations for
Close Liaison
W3C/WAI
Protocols and Formats WG
INCITS/L8
INCITS T4 (security)
UPnP
Jini
W3C RDF Core Working
Group
W3C
XForms Working Group
5. Units of Measurement used in the
Standard
Not Measurement Sensitive
1. Source of the Proposed Project
1.1 Title
Protocol to Facilitate
Operation of Information and Electronic Products through Remote and Alternative
Interfaces and Intelligent Agents: Presentation Templates
1.2 Date Submitted
1.3 Proposer(s)
The INCITS Information Technology
Access Interfaces Technical Committee (INCITS/V2).
Four organizations (IBM, NIST, Panasonic, & Unisys) are members of
both INCITS/V2 and the INCITS Executive Board.
2. Process Description for the Proposed Project
2.1 Project Type (Development or Revision)
Development ("D")
2.2 Type of Document
Standard
2.3 Definitions of Concepts and Special Terms
See
attached: Terms
of Reference
2.4 Expected Relationship with Approved Reference Models, Frameworks,
Architectures, etc.
There are a number of existing protocol
and modeling activities being undertaken by the Internet Engineering Task Force
(IETF), the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), and other consortia and
specification development activities that we are coordinating with. We are
working with INCITS/L8 to ensure that necessary data definitions, metadata, as
well as shared data registry and registration authority definitions are
specified correctly and similarly with INCITS/T4 to ensure that security and
privacy issues are appropriately addressed.
2.5 Recommended INCITS Development Technical Committee
(Existing)
The INCITS Information Technology
Access Interfaces Technical Committee (INCITS/V2).
2.6 Anticipated Frequency and Duration of Meetings
INCITS/V2 meets 4 times a year at
various locations throughout the
2.7
Target Date for Initial Public Review (Milestone 4)
2.8 Estimated Useful
Life of Standard or Technical Report
At least 5 years.
3. Business Case for Developing the Proposed Standard or Technical Report
3.1 Description
This proposed American National
Standard will be one in a series supporting the development of Universal Remote Consoles (URCs). The goal of this set
of standards is to provide a framework of components that combine to enable
remote User Interfaces and remote control of network accessible electronic
devices and services through a Universal Remote Console (URC).
The V2 Technical Committee is developing a set of
standards for the discovery, selection, configuration, and operation of user
interfaces and options. The purpose of these standards is to facilitate
the development and deployment of a wide variety of devices (from different
manufacturers) that can act as Universal Remote Consoles (URCs) for an equally
varied range of devices and services (called "Targets"). In other words,
the standards will allow users to control any number of Electronic and
Information Technology devices in their environment.
The potential Targets include both devices and
services. They may range from things as simple as a light switch and
thermostats, to more complex items such as audio visual equipment, home
appliances, electronics in a car or other constrained or specialized
environment, web-based services, and any other devices or services that can be
controlled electronically (or via Communications or Information Technology --
CIT).
Targets may be in the same location as the individual
who desires to control the Target through the URC, or the Target can be at any
distance from the URC/user, as long as there is some type of network connection
between the URC and the Target. This is possible since a URC provides the
user with all of the necessary controls as well as the prompts and other
information displayed by the Target.
URC functionality could be provided by common devices
such as personal computing and Information Technology devices (e.g. laptops,
PDAs), telecommunications/WAP devices (e.g. cell phones), etc. They could also
be functions implemented in assistive technology devices, or they could be
devices that were specially built to function as Universal Remote
Consoles. They may also be devices that were built to function primarily
as Remote Consoles for a particular family of products (e.g. a Remote Console
designed to control components of an integrated home audio-visual system), but
would also serve to control any other device that is (V2) URC compatible.
They are similar in behavior to universal remote controls today, except
a) they have much greater function and scope,
b)
they synchronize with the Target in both directions (i.e. they can display the
current status of the Target),
c) they don't need to be programmed by
the user, (since they will automatically discover devices that are controllable
in a user's vicinity, discover the abstracted user interface of the Targets and
present it in the way preferred by the user), and
d) depending on the
networking technology used, they may be used out of sight of the product they
are controlling.
The output interfaces provided by URCs could be all
visual, all tactile, or all verbal in nature (or any combination thereof),
because the (V2) URC specifies the content of a Target user interface
independently from the form in which it is presented. Similarly and for
the same reason, the control interfaces may be by voice, keyboard, mouse or any
other available technology. Thus, URCs could be designed that an
individual could talk to and, through the URC, the user
could have speech access to any (V2) URC compatible Target listed above without
any of these Targets having any voice recognition or voice control functionality
themselves. A person might, therefore, be able to say to their URC,
"Record channel 12 and show me 'Law and Order'". Or they could be laying
in bed and say, "Set the alarm to
The Standard Presentation Template specification
efforts within V2 provide the definition of an XML language for providing hints
for building a usable and consistent user interface for a Target device or
service that is described in a User Interface Socket Description as defined in
the (V2) User Interface Socket Description
specification. The hints are of an abstract nature, and are intended to
apply to any delivery context.
This document provides the specification
for development of a (V2) Standard Presentation Template. The following
additional documents have been defined separately and specify other specific
languages and components of the (V2) URC standard:
<!--[if
!supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]-->
·
Universal Remote Console (URC)
·
User Interface Socket Description
·
Resource Descriptions
·
Target Properties Sheet
3.2. Existing Practice and the Need for a Standard
No standard or specification exists for defining a
user interface (UI) for an arbitrary electronic or information technology device
or CIT service that is independent of mode of UI rendition or instanciation, along with the means for communicating such
definitions and using them to achieve remote control of the device or service.
Such mode independent UI descriptions together with robust specifications for UI
rendition and instanciation , defining a
"Universal Access Bus," are essential for simplifying and normalizing our
increasingly complex, increasingly computer dominated environment.
The existence of such a universal access bus for
consumer products, environmental controls, appliances, web services, etc. will
also benefit people with disabilities and the aging population by helping organizations meet state and Federal requirements for universal access
to services, data, and information.
3.3. Implementation
Impacts of the Proposed Standard
3.3.1 Development Costs
This Standard will be developed
through the voluntary and cooperative efforts of INCITS Information Technology
Access Interfaces Technical Committee (INCITS/V2) members. No significant
development costs are anticipated.
3.3.2 Impact on Existing or
Potential Markets
There is a burgeoning market
already for personalization of content and appearance on the World Wide Web,
with regard to small handheld devices and for commercial sales purposes.
Companies such as IBM, ATG and Vignette, among many others, have products and
services for this explicit purpose. This market is expected to grow
considerably in the next 3 years. There is also a movement in the
Web to provide sites of interest to people with disabilities (e.g., HalfthePlanet, WeMedia, CanDo) and the aging population (e.g., SeniorNet), and
attempts to bring the W3C WAI recommendations into these. Alternative
interfaces to meet these needs, whether pre-constructed, adapted or constructed
on the fly, are a form of personalization.
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)
This follows the burgeoning of wireless technology from companies such as Qualcomm, Nokia, Ericsson, and Motorola, to mention but a few, as well as activities such as the Wireless Application Protocol Forum (WAPForum) and the Salutation Consortium in promoting applications for wireless devices. Handheld devices such as the 3Com Palm and the Pocket PC are targeted at the mobile computing environment. Another important factor in the wireless environment is the Bluetooth RF infrastructure for which a very substantial number of manufacturers are building compatible devices.
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 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. Many of these already exist. Netscape has
released its Versions 6 browser which permits widespread modification of both
its operating interface and the content appearing on it, through a language
called XUL (extensible User interface Language). There is also another
language called User Interface Markup Language that uses Sun Microsystems’ Java
Swing for modifying rendering of interface elements. Both of these
languages are compatible with and expressible by the W3C language XML. Sun
is also pushing its Jini connection technology as a means of mediating access to
alternative interfaces (the proposed standards would run over Jini). Other
venues for the standard include the Salutation Consortium’s
Salutation architecture, HomeAPI/Universal Plug and Play, and other home networking
technologies.
3.3.3 Costs and Methods for Conformity Assessment
The document will
contain requirements for conformity pertaining to each component of the
standard. These requirements can be used to test conformance with the
standard.
Conformance will be
determined by industry interoperability testing methods. The costs for
such testing will be born by the component (URC or Target) developer or
manufacturer.
3.3.4 Return on Investment
The
return on investment for this development is expected to be high, due to the
complexity and cost to individuals and their employing organizations of using the current methods of interface configuration
in the areas covered by the proposed Standard.
3.4 Legal Considerations
Calls have been made
to identify assertions of patent rights in accordance with the relevant INCITS,
ANSI and ISO/IEC policies and procedures. At this time, INCITS/V2 members are
unaware of any patent assertions that may be made.
3.4.2
Dissemination of the Standard or Technical Report
Drafts of this document will be
disseminated electronically. Dissemination of the final Standard will be
restricted as the document becomes the property of INCITS, ANSI, or
ISO/IEC.
4. Related Standards Activities
4.1 Existing Standards
There are no known
protocols at the Human Computer Interface.
4.2 Related
Standards Activity
HFES
ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 35 User
Interfaces
Note: as the U.S. TAG to
ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC 35 User Interfaces, INCITS/V2 will be working closely with the
International community to ensure the broadest possible acceptance of the
standards. We intend to submit a parallel NP for development of a
multipart ISO/IEC International Standard.
4.3 Recommendations for
Close Liaison
W3C/WAI
Protocols and Formats WG
INCITS/L8
INCITS T4 (security)
UPnP
Jini
W3C RDF Core Working
Group
W3C
XForms Working
Group
5. Units of Measurement used in the
Standard
Not Measurement Sensitive
Doc: V2/03-0091R2
Date: December
15, 2003
Subject: Draft Agenda, INCITS/V2 Information Technology
Access Interfaces Plenary Meeting #14
Project: Administrative
Ref.
Doc:
Reply to: Bill
LaPlant
Phone: 301-763-4887
(expires January 30, 2004);
703-360-9184
email: mailto:blaplant@mindspring.com
This meeting is hosted by the National Institue of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Contact: Charles Sheppard at 301-975-3269
Meeting Dates, Times, and Locations:
Wednesday, January 14, 2004 - 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM (ET) NIST Shops Conference Room, Building 304 Room 126, Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Thursday, January 15, 2004 - 9:00 AM
- 6:00 PM (ET) NIST Shops Conference
Room, Building 304 Room 126, Gaithersburg, Maryland.
Meeting Registration:
http://www.nist.gov/incits/v2
2. Introduction of attendees. Ref: V2/01-SD-01 List of Members and Contact Information
3. Approval of the Agenda. Ref: V2/03-0091R1 (this document)
4. Approval of the Minutes for plenary meeting #12 and #13 ref: V2/03-0067, "Draft Minutes for NCITS/V2 plenary meeting #12 of V2, 6/17- 6/18/2003)" and V2/03-00nn, "Draft Minutes for NCITS/V2 plenary meeting #13 of V2, 10/7- 10/8/2003)" (Mr. Joe Roeder - Secretary)
5. Review of action items Ref: V2/01-SD-03 V2 ACTION ITEMS (Roeder)
6. Administrative Reports (LaPlant, Haritos-Shea, Roeder, Zimmermann)
6.1 Officer Remarks.
6.1.1 Chair. (LaPlant)
6.1.1.1 Call for Chairman
6.1.2 Vice Chair. (Haritos-Shea)
6.1.3 International Representative (Zimmermann)
6.1.4 Secretary (Roeder)
6.2 Roll Call of Members in Jeopardy Due to Failure to Attend Meetings.
6.3 New member recruiting.
6.4 INCITS Training.
7. U.S. TAG to ISO/IEC JTC 1
SC 35 User Interfaces Sub Committee ref: http://forum.afnor.fr/afnor/WORK/AFNOR/GPN2/Z62A/index.htm
(Zimmermann)
7.2 ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC36 Information Technology for Learning, Education, and Training ref: http://jtc1sc36.org/ (Farance)
7.3 ISO/IEC JTC 1 SC25 WG1 Home Electronic Systems ref: http://hes-standards.org/ (Farance)
7.4 ISO TC 154 (Metadata) & ISO TC 159 (Ergonomics)
8. Review of Related Activities
8.1 Web Accessibility Initiative ref: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) Home Page (Gilman, Haritos-Shea, LaPlant)
8.2 IEEE P1621 Standard for User Interface Elements in Power Control of Electronic Devices Employed in Office/Consumer Environments ref: http://eetd.LBL.gov/Controls/1621/1621index.html Power Controls User Interface Working Group (Nordman)
8.3 Access Board Proposed Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards ref: http://www.access-board.gov/sec508/508standards.htm#PART%201194 Federal Electronic and Information Technology Accessibility Standards (LaPlant)
8.4 Universal Plug and Play Forum ref: http://www.upnp.org/ Various UPnP Standards may be of interest or of use.
8.5 Other
8.5.1 Metadata
8.5.1.1 Dublin Core (Nevile)
8.5.1.2 INCITS L8 Metadata (Sheppard)
8.6.2 XForms (Trewin)
8.6.3 Smart Space (Sheppard, Roucoux)
8.6.4 INCITS M1, T4, B10, JTC1 SC37 (Sheppard)
8.6.5 OASIS User Interface Markup Language (LaPlant)
8.6.6 Consumer Electronics Show -CES (Vanderheiden)
9. Presentations
9.1 Technical presentations
9.2 Ad hoc task group reports
9.2.1 V2A - AIAP-URC Editing (Trewin/Zimmermann)
9.2.2 V2E - Editing (Haritos-Shea)
9.2.3 V2G - Glossary/scenarios
9.2.4 V2M - Metadata (Sheppard/Roucoux)
9.2.5 V2S - Security
9.2.6 V2P - Promotion (Vanderheiden)
10. Discussion of tasks and priorities (Trewin/Zimmermann/Gilman/Haritos-Shea/LaPlant)
10.1 Working Sessions
11. Pending Items.
11.1 Future directions (Vanderheiden)
11.2 V2 Web Site (Sajka/Haritos-Shea)
12. New Items.
12.1 Draft Project Proposals
(LaPlant)
12.1.1 Project Proposal to Develop a New Standard Alternate Interface Access Protocol —Universal
Remote Console (AIAP-URC) Specification (Ref: V2/03-0092).
12.1.2 Project Proposal to Develop a New Standard Alternate Interface Access Protocol —Standard User Interface Soc