Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Review meeting
Citation preview
MyUI Ontology DraftAndreas Schmidt, Heiko Haller
FZI Research Center for Information Technologies Karlsruhe, Germany
Review Meeting, Brussels, July 14, 2010
2
Ontologies and their use
•Two perspectives:–shared understanding of a domain of interest (Uschold & Grüninger 1996)
–explicit specification of a conceptualization (Gruber 1993)
•Ontology-centereddesign
3
Ontologies in myUI
• In myUI:– describing preferences, impairments etc. of the end user („user model“)
– describing capabilities of devices (with respect to UI adaptation)
– describing environmental and other contextual factor
• Purpose– enable run-time adaptation– guide design-time activities
4
Iterative Approach
Usefulness
AvailabilityDeviceCapabilities
adaptationrequirements &strategies
sensors
Would this informationchange the way we wouldlike to adapt the UI?
What are welikely able to capture?
What are device requirements/constraints?
device UIdesign
SCENARIOS
Standards
Standards
Standards
5
Starting point
reusing
Ontology Overview: Preferences and Impairment
Ontology: Hierarchy of Disabilities
Hierarchy of Disabilities (Detail)
9
Additional contextual factors identified (small subset)
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
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).
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)
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 approach to ontology modeling following the ontology-centered design methodology–First phase: „ontology as mediating artefact“–(Second phase: ontology a formal specification for automation)
•Current status: First iterations completed with a first draft of the ontology–Mainly focused on the user profile and impairments–Reusing the vocabulary from the SOPRANO/openAAL ontology
•Next steps–closer investigation into adaptivity requirements
