Beyond Standards: Unleashing Accessibility on a Learning Content Management System

Transcription

1 Beyond Standards: Unleashing Accessibility on a Learning Content Management System Silvia Mirri 1, Paola Salomoni 1, Marco Roccetti 1, and Gregory R. Gay 2 1 Department of Computer Science, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy {silvia.mirri,paola.salomoni,marco.roccetti}@unibo.it 2 Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC/IDI), OCAD University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada ggay@ocad.ca Abstract. Standards are typically conceived as a means of inclusion, where the term inclusion can refer either to an economic scenario or a social one. They represent a pattern, a paradigm, or an archetype to be wrapped around some kind of reality. Standards related to the Internet and its applications are explicit sets of requirements to be satisfied. Applying and implementing such standards reveals their capabilities to definitively satisfy their goals, beyond the authoritative principles they implicitly carry on. This paper explores questions and perspectives about the implementation of two accessibility standards in an e-learning platform, achieving inclusion both of the standards and their goals to provide accessibility. Their actual implementation in the LCMS ATutor reinforces considerations about inconsistencies and points out some aspects which may otherwise not be glaring. In order to offer enhanced accessibility, some adjustments have been applied in the implementation phase, as the paper describes. Keywords: Design, Human Factors, Standardization, Learning Content Management Systems, E-learning Standards, Instructor Interfaces, Personalized E-Learning. 1 Introduction Standards refer to processes and products, as well as their description (which could be used as metadata about their properties and content). Nowadays they are crowding up the e-learning technologies and applications world [1]. Goals of inclusion are surely reliant upon compliance with one or more standards, but the contemporary presence or overlapping of such standards can reveal inconsistencies, discrepancies or short falls, contradicting their implicit aim. The process of constructing metadata, data structures, and communication protocols according to any imposed pattern or archetype (as we can conceive a standard) opens a range of issues and perspectives about standardization. Standardization is involved also in making learning content work across different platforms and to be accessible to the widest number of learners. Z. Pan et al. (Eds.): Transactions on Edutainment V, LNCS 6530, pp , Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

2 36 S. Mirri et al. E-learning content and e-learning platforms could obviously be used with older technologies or configurations, making them less available to users who have limited access capabilities or who are using non-standard computer equipment. For example, learners with disabilities who need assistive technologies can greatly benefit from e- learning because it allows distance and flexible learning activities and helps them to access resources which would otherwise present significant barriers [2]. Starting from 2002, the IMS Global Learning Consortium began defining a set of specifications that attempt to address the personalization or transformation of learning content [3]. Recently at the time the authors were writing this paper a new standard emerged on the accessibility scene: the ISO FDIS Accessibility standards [4]. Both IMS specifications and the newer ISO standards are based on learners profiles and the description of the learning content through metadata. This paper describes the implementation of the two aforementioned standards in ATutor [5], an open source Learning Content Management System (LCMS) used worldwide. The exhaustiveness of each standard, and their coexistence, related to the real and effective improvement of accessibility, has been taken into account during their design, implementation and assessment on ATutor. Implementing the IMS specifications and the ISO standards on such a LCMS represented the ideal case study for emerging open issues. In particular, inconsistencies between the learner profile and content metadata standards, after being applied to specific situations, have implied the adoption of suitable strategies warranting the compliance to both kinds of standard at the same time. As a result, ATutor now provides authors with the means to add alternate forms of content to their learning materials, such as caption for a movie, or a transcript for an audio presentation, or a textual description as an alternate for a flash presentation. Moreover, learners can define in their preference settings how the ATutor environment is displayed, and declare which forms of content they prefer so it is adapted to each individual user s learning preferences. This implementation has been included as a standard feature in ATutor beginning with version The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we outline the standards involved by comparing the IMS AccessForAll specifications and the ISO FDIS Accessibility standards. Section 3 presents the main related work implementing the IMS AccessForAll specifications in e-learning environments and other applications, while section 4 details design and implementation issues. In Section 5 a use case is presented. Section 6 discusses new considerations about learner profiles and learning content metadata specifications and standards. Section 7 concludes the paper. 2 Background Among the many e-learning standards, some specifications are aimed at accessibility. One, the IMS AccessForAll specifications is based on: learner profile metadata, to describe user preferences and needs (IMS ACCessibility for Learning Information Package (ACCLIP) [3]);

3 Beyond Standards: Unleashing Accessibility on a Learning Content Management System 37 content metadata, to label content resources (IMS ACCessibility for MetaData [ACCMD] [6]). By matching these specifications, it is possible for e-learning content authors to provide alternative formats of the same content, to permit users profile declarations, and to automatically configure content for each individual learner. At the time of writing, a new set of standards had emerged into the e-learning accessibility scene: the ISO FDIS Accessibility standards [6]. Moreover, the IMS AccessForAll specifications were in transition from the 1.0 to the 2.0 version, and the latter will be based largely on the newer ISO standard. The implementation of accessibility metadata and profiling in ATutor has been designed with both ISO and IMS in mind. The approach of the ISO FDIS Accessibility standard is similar to the IMS AccessForAll specifications. The ISO Digital Resources Description (DRD) [7] claims the same objectives as the IMS ACCMD, and the ISO Personal Needs and Preferences (PNP) [8] is similar to the IMS ACCLIP. Both the ISO DRD and the ISO PNP can be used independently (for instance, the PNP could be used to deliver the required or desired user interface to learner/user), or in combination the former with the latter, to deliver digital content that meet a user s needs and preferences. Both the ACCLIP and the PNP specifications define the required elements to describe the accessibility preferences of the learner or user, which can be grouped into four sections: 1. Display information, which includes data about how the user interface and content should be presented and structured. These elements describe how the user prefers information to be displayed or presented; possible requirements include preferences related to cursors, fonts and colours characteristics. Figure 1 shows the Display Settings screenshot of the ATutor user preferences system. 2. Control information, which defines how learners prefer to control resources and how they are operated; e.g., it is possible to define preferences related to navigation elements and to standard keyboard usage, to declare the need for non typical control mechanism, such as an onscreen keyboard, alternative keyboard, mouse emulation, alternative pointing mechanism or voice recognition. 3. Content information, which describes which alternative resources the learner requires; e.g., it is possible to define how to present visual, textual and auditory content in alternate modalities. 4. Accommodations information, which allows recording of requests for and authorization of accessibility accommodations for testing or assessment; for instance, it is possible to declare the request for a particular accommodation and its description. An ACCLIP profile could be presented to an e-learning application by a learner using a smart card, a memory stick, automatically retrieved from a database or by declaring his/her preferences though a Web interface. The system in turn would serve up the appropriately customized content adapted specifically for that person, according to the accessibility metadata the content author has defined through the IMS ACCMD.

4 38 S. Mirri et al. The IMS ACCMD and the ISO DRD specifications group resources into two categories: original (the initial or default resources) and adapted resources (they address the same learning objective as the original resources, but offering the same meaning in alternative forms). Metadata can be used to describe the actual sensory requirements necessary to access the resource and to describe the relationships between originals and their related alternatives. 3 Related Work There are several works related to the adaptation of the learning resources and/or to the profiling of learners needs and preferences, in both research and applied science. Due to its very recent release, none of the previous work takes into account the ISO Accessibility standards. Instead, they are mainly based on the IMS AccessForAll 1.0 specifications. First we will consider works about the matching between the IMS ACCLIP [3] and the IMS ACCMD [6], and then those that deal with each specification separately. First let us consider a project that takes into account both components of the IMS AccessForAll specifications. The Inclusive Learning Exchange (TILE) [13] is a Learning Objects (LOs) repository that stores objects as atomic files, along with their general and AccessForAll metadata. Whenever content authors use the TILE authoring tool to compose and publish learning objects, they are supported in creating and appropriately labeling transformable aggregated lessons (codified by the TILE system using ACCMD). Learners are able to define their preferences, which are stored as IMS ACCLIP records. It is worth noting that TILE is a content repository, thus it is usually linked into an LMS or LCMS through which they can to import and/or export learning objects. Different outcomes emerge from the other projects matching IMS ACCLIP and ACCMD. Works claiming different goals highlight other types of shortcomings and limitations in these specifications. For instance, in a recent study [14], the authors point out some limitations related to the following aspects of the specifications: information about learners preferences and needs is not static, but evolve with time; moreover, some ACCLIP information could not be known by the user in advance and creates a gap in the profile and subsequently in the content adaptation; there is a strong relationship between the capabilities offered by the device used by learners and the effective e-learning accessibility, but there is not a direct match between the information managed by both specifications. Characteristics of device capabilities are one of the focuses of [15] as well, in which the gap in learners profiling specifications emerges as a critical point, above all in mobile-learning environments (in which learning experience can be enjoyed by exploiting mobile device capabilities). A solution to this issue has been proposed in [12], by considering W3C Composite Capabilities/Preference Profile (CC/PP) standard [16] in order to describe device characteristics in addition to user needs and the software environment, so as to provide a more complete learner profiling mechanism.

5 Beyond Standards: Unleashing Accessibility on a Learning Content Management System 39 Different considerations come out of other works (including [14] and [17]) that match ACCLIP and ACCMD. They adopt concepts and standards related to the semantic Web in describing textual and contextual information in a standardized manner, promoting accessibility and also content reusability. Among the works related to learner profiling, the Web-4-All project [18] emerges. It allows users to automatically configure a public access computer by using a profile described with ACCLIP and stored on a smartcard. The main idea is that each user can freely switch from one public workstation to another, thanks to the data stored on the smartcard. Whenever it is read by a public workstation, the Web-4-All software automatically configures the operating system, the browser and the assistive technologies. This project applies the whole IMS ACCLIP specification. Actually the IMS ACCLIP could be used in more than just e-learning, but also in many other contexts. It is worth mentioning that the Web-4-All software is tailored for a very specific environment, in which workstations are equipped with a smartcard reader and with suitable assistive technologies. Moreover, it does not consider the need to adapt content in different formats; hence it would have limited usefulness in a more common Web-based learning context. Obviously, in such a case, gaps in specifications and inconsistencies with other standards do not come into play, as well as in the other works, which are devoted to investigate or apply only the learners profiling specifications. A mirror-like situation arises from those works related to the content metadata addition. 4 Design Issues and Implementation The main aim of this project is the implementation of the IMS AccessForAll specifications and the ISO FDIS Accessibility standard in ATutor [9], used to display content based on user preferences. This has been involved: implementing a utility to define user preferences; adapting the ATutor Content Manager to implement the ISO DRD and the IMS ACCMD which retrieves users specific content based on their preferences, in order to allow authoring adapted content; modifying the import/export tool, in order to allow the adoption of new metadata devoted to describe primary and equivalent resources. In the following subsections the implementation of such functionalities in ATutor will be described. 4.1 Implementing Learners Profiles In order to declare users preferences, personalized settings have to be extended the already existing ATutor users profile [10]. In particular, user preference area allows declaring five types of personalized settings: ATutor. The preferences prior to IMS AccessForAll specifications and to ISO FDIS Accessibility standards implementation, for controlling various ATutor related functionality. Display. Display preferences are applied by generating an embedded stylesheet in the head area of ATutor, which overrides the system display settings with those

6 40 S. Mirri et al. of the user. Users can control various fonts and colour settings, which replace those same styles defined in the theme being viewed. Figure 1 shows a screenshot of ATutor Display Settings User Preferences. Content. Control over display of adapted content: visual, audio, textual adaptations; to replace or supplement original content; choosing a preferred language for adapted resources. A screenshot of the ATutor Content Settings user preferences is depicted in Figure 2. Content preferences are handled by ATutor's primary output parser. The output parser's function is responsible for the content adaptation, by checking if a content preference setting is enabled in the array of preference settings described above, and retrieving the appropriate adaptations if they exist. If no adaptations exist, the original content is displayed. The screenshot in Figure 2 shows preference settings for alternatives to text, audio and visual, selecting whether to apply the adaptation, choosing which modal adaptation to replace the file with, and selecting the preferred language the resource should appear in. Tools. Learning scaffolds displayed, such as a dictionary, calculator, or encyclopedia. The first implementation of Tool preference is a simple static list of common learning scaffolds. An administrator defines the URLs to versions of Web based tools, such as an online dictionary, or calculator, for instance. When a user selects any of the available tools under the Tools tab of the Preferences screen, they appear as links to the external tools in a side menu block. Controls. Display of navigation elements such as breadcrumbs, sequence links, tables of contents. These settings allow a user to control which navigation elements are displayed: breadcrumbs, sequence links, and a table of contents at the top of each content page. Implementing these control settings involve modifying ATutor themes, adding in several conditional statements (if/then) that check to see if a preference is set before displaying these navigation tools. The previous statements are added to theme header template files. Figure 3 shows a screenshot of ATutor Control Settings User Preferences. 4.2 Implementing Authoring Adapted Content The ATutor Content Editor has had a new Tab added, Adapted Content, through which content authors can assemble alternatives or supplements for original pieces of content. ATutor content pages are parsed to identify the files linked into each content page as a whole. First the Original Resource Types are defined: auditory, textual, and/or visual. A radio button for one of the resource files from the original content is selected on the left, and an adapted resource file is selected from the file manager to the right, then the Add button can create an association between the files. The Adapted Resource will then appear as a subsection to the original resource that appears above. Select the available Adapted Resource Types to define the access modality of the adapted resource, and select the language of the resource. A variety of different adaptations can be added for each file in the original resource. Figure 4

7 Beyond Standards: Unleashing Accessibility on a Learning Content Management System 41 shows a screenshot of the ATutor Adapted Content Editor: original resources are listed on the left side of the page, while the course File Manager is available on the right side; through this tool it is possible to define resource forms or types, and relationships between originals and alternatives. Fig. 1. The ATutor Display Settings User Preferences Fig. 2. The ATutor Content Settings User Preferences

8 42 S. Mirri et al. Fig. 3. The ATutor Control Settings User Preferences Fig. 4. The ATutor Adapted Content Interface 4.3 Modifying Import/Export Tool IMS AccessForAll and ISO FDIS Accessibility metadata have been integrated into ATutor content packaging. Content authors can choose to export adapted content with the content packages they distribute, and instructors and course designers can choose to import adapted content when restoring content packages into their course learning materials. This extension of the IMS Content Packaging [11] in ATutor makes possible to share adapted content once it had been created and to maintain relationships between original and adapted resources also in other IMS compliant LCMSs. Figure 5 shows a screenshot of the enhanced ATutor import/export tool. Authors and users can choose to export and/or import learning content maintaining accessibility metadata or not.

9 Beyond Standards: Unleashing Accessibility on a Learning Content Management System 43 5 Use Cases Fig. 5. The ATutor import/export tool This section is devoted to describe some use cases, in order to show how the ATutor LCMS could be used, exploiting the new accessibility features. In particular, we show a content author who adds some adapted resources to an original one in a didactical material and two students who access the same content in different formats, according to their preferences and needs. The content author is the lecturer of a course in an Italian Master degree in E- learning. This course is named Multimedia Systems (in Italian Sistemi Multimediali ) and it is devised in blended learning. The LCMS ATutor is exploited to host and deliver the e-learning content. Through the ATutor content editor interface, the lecturer: authors the didactical materials and, by using the Adapted Content tab; declares the natural language and the types (auditory, visual, textual and sign language) of original and adapted resources; adds new adapted resources, she creates a relationships between original and corresponding adapted resources. In particular, she adds an auditory adapted resource, which corresponds to a speech description of a JPG image in the original content (see Figure 4). When this user accesses the digital lecture, then the ATutor LCMS automatically transform the content and it provides the auditory alternative (when available), replacing each image (Figure 7). A blind student accesses the course and declares his profile through the Preferences interface, setting his need for auditory adapted resources to replace visual original ones in the Content Settings Tab (Figure 6). Users with low vision would find great benefit by asking in their profile to append an alternative to the original visual resources, so that they could enjoy the images together with their proper auditory or textual description. An example is shown in Figure 8. As

10 44 S. Mirri et al. we have discussed in Section 3, even if such a feature is not included in user profiling standards, we have added the possibility to specify in users would like the adapted resource to replace the default one or be appended (see Figure 6 and Figure 8). Fig. 6. Blind user s content settings preferences Fig. 7. A screenshot of an adapted content for blind users (in Italian language), where the auditory alternative has replaced the visual original resource

11 Beyond Standards: Unleashing Accessibility on a Learning Content Management System 45 Original resources are maintained when users have declared no settings in their preferences profile or when there is no match between users needs and alternatives types the authors have added to the original content. Fig. 8. A screenshot of an adapted content for users with low vision (in Italian language), where the auditory alternative has been appended to the visual original resource 6 Discussion As already detailed in Section 2, the ISO Accessibility standards aim to integrate the IMS ACCLIP and the IMS ACCMD respectively into the ISO PNP and the ISO DRD set of specifications. Differences between IMS and ISO are primarily in the language used: the IMS uses terms such as Primary, Secondary, Alternate resources, the ISO defines such resources as Original and Adapted. Moreover, the IMS refers to visual, auditory, tactile and textual as Content Types, while the ISO refers to the same terms (and also to olfactory) as Access Modes or the senses through which content is experienced. As a synthesis, in order to obtain compliance with both standards, learners' needs and preferences on one side, and content metadata about accessibility on the other, they must coexist and be mutually consistent with each other. Indeed, limitations and mismatches have been found and analyzed during the implementation of the IMS specifications and the ISO standards in ATutor, and potential solutions have been proposed to fill some of these gaps. The following subsections detail and critically analyze, by examples, such limitations and inconsistencies, and follows with proposed solutions.

12 46 S. Mirri et al. 6.1 Learners Needs and Preferences With both IMS ACCLIP and ISO PNP, learners can declare which kind of adapted resources they prefer or need in place of a particular type of original content. Text may be preferred or needed instead of visual resources and/or audio might be preferred over text or images, and so on. According to both of the standards, learners can explicitly declare in their preference profiles only one alternative access modes for each form of resources. For instance, blind learner could state he/she needs to access original visual resources only as auditory or textual alternative content. Such a one-to-one relationship does not allow further choices: the blind user for instance, might request audio files describing images, but if such alternatives are absent, he/she cannot choose a text description instead (to be read by a screen reader). Any implicit extension of the choices, so as to describe an alternative having, in turn another alternative, and so on, might produce a loop among available (and not available) forms of resources. Furthermore, both standards do not deal with sizes or quality of video and audio resources: it is not possible to request a degraded version of a clip or an audio file to be adapted to the device being used. In implementing IMS ACCLIP and ISO PNP in ATutor, the above limitations remained open issues for future work. As a summary, a suitable mechanism to identify loops in one-to-many relationships among requests will have to be designed, while profiling of resources related to their quality will be taken into account, as other standard, i.e. CC/PP, do [12]. 6.2 Content Metadata From the content metadata point of view, providing information about alternatives to resources is the aim of the IMS ACCMD specification and the ISO DRD standard. Any content being presented can be identified as having a primary form and adapted ones, depending on its media type. In ATutor, such information has been used so as to present adapted content, based on a user s profile. Typically, learning content may be made up of many resources. Aggregated and complex learning content has to be disassembled into separate parts to be designated as primary or alternative forms of content, and match users' preferences and needs. Each separate part is thought of as an atom, which could be considered as a whole to an alternative form of it. Limitations about the capability of exhaustively providing metadata arise whenever authors would provide alternatives both to the whole original aggregated content and to each single part that makes up the whole resource. Let us consider, as an example, an HTML document containing pieces of formatted text and JPEG images. At the atomic level, accessibility metadata for each JPEG would contain the attribute which defines the visual nature of the resources and possibly their textual alternatives. Assuming each component of the HTML document has complete accessibility metadata, they can be matched with the learners personal needs, making it possible to adapt the content and present alternatives to the JPEG images, if the learner has requested them. Unfortunately, due to definitions in the ISO standards and the IMS specifications documents, it is not possible to declare pieces of formatted text in an HTML

13 Beyond Standards: Unleashing Accessibility on a Learning Content Management System 47 document as original resources, if they are not in separated single files. This means it is possible to provide alternatives only to external textual files, such as PDF, DOC, RTF or TXT files, whenever they are linked to the HTML document. This poses a problem when trying to meet the needs of some particular learners, for instance users with reading disabilities. Providing adaptations for this kind of resource is a challenging aspect of implementing the IMS and ISO accessibility standards. A feasible solution seems to be defining the whole aggregated object as atomic, by declaring all the suitable attributes in order to identify its form, and by adding alternatives to it as a whole, but some problems make it ineffective. First, this is possible only if we give up the idea of providing alternatives to each single file which the whole content addresses to: only one alternative will be displayed when the content is viewed. Let us consider an author who defines an audio alternative for a visual resource in a page, then defines another audio alternative for a primarily text page as a whole. In this case, ACCMD and DRD metadata are not sufficiently to determine which auditory resource has to be displayed to learners who declare to need audio alternatives to both visual and textual original content. Second, the more the aggregated resource is composed of different kinds of media, the more providing appropriated alternatives to it as a whole would be difficult. In our accessibility standards implementation, the initial idea of creating an alternative for text content on an aggregated resource was to produce a full alternative (an aggregated resource itself) for the original one. This idea has been set aside, because it created conflicts with the other types of adaptations of content, due to the definition of standards specification, as already mentioned. Finally, other limitations emerge in providing metadata on multimedia objects. According to the standards, they are dealt with as a sort of black-box. On one hand, some multimedia formats and standards are thought as referring to single files (i.e. SMIL and MPEG 7), so as to let their disaggregation. On the other hand, Flash applications or MPEG2 clips are examples of potentially indivisible objects, which have to be considered as atom elements. Even when multimedia objects are recognized as aggregated resources, standards do not allow one to declare subsets of single resources as atomic, and to define alternative to individual atoms. A sequence of audio files cannot be identified as a single resource and a video with sign language content cannot be defined as an alternative to it. Vice versa, a subset of adapted resources cannot be declared as an alternative to a single resource. As an instance, a sequence of images cannot be declared as an alternative to a Flash animation. Such limitations prevent providing different alternatives to multimedia object with different levels of disaggregation so as to meet a wider range of users needs, which surely improve the accessibility and the personalization level of the learning materials. 6.3 Learners Profiling and Content Metadata Standards Asymmetry All considerations outlined above represent gaps or limitations of each of the standards IMS ACCMD and ISO DRD on one side, and IMS ACCLIP and ISO PNP on the other, considered separately. Also an inconsistence between the IMS and ISO standards has be found and analyzed. It is related to the declaration of supplementary or replacement alternatives

14 48 S. Mirri et al. to resources. Following the IMS ACCMD and ISO DRD standards, it should be possible to define an adapted resource as a supplement to the original one. This means that, in order to meet users needs, the adapted resource should be offered together with, and not as a substitute for the original file. On the other hand, the IMS ACCLIP and ISO PNP do not consider such information. Hence, even if the authors declare supplementary resources, there is no way to define information addressable by users preferences about them. In several cases, providing both the original resource and the additional one would better meet learners needs. As an instance, users with low vision could benefit from the provision of a visual resource together with its textual or audio alternative: those learners can see the image by using their screen magnification applications and take advantage of the related adapted resource, better understanding the meaning of content. For the same reason, learners with reading disabilities would often prefer to read textual resources with some assistive technologies (Text-To- Speech based, for instance) and can benefit from an alternative visual resource, allowing them to experience the content through multiple sensory modalities. In order to offer more custom-made content, in ATutor users have the opportunity of specifying if they would like the adapted resource to replace the original one or be appended to it as shown in Figure 6 and in Figure 8. This solution does not affect content interoperability, because it is only related to users profiling specifications, instead of accessibility metadata standards. In fact, accessibility metadata may be added to content packages (as well as the content itself), according to e-learning interoperability standards. This allows exporting content that, in turn, could be imported into another standard compliant LCMS, without loss of information. New (non standard) metadata could not be understood by other compliant LCMSs. References 1. Devedzic, V., Jovanovic, J., Gasevic, D.: The Pragmatics of Current E-Learning Standards. IEEE Journal of Internet Computing 11(3), (2007) 2. Barron, J.A., Fleetwood, L., Barron, A.E.: E-Learning for Everyone: Addressing Accessibility. Journal of Interactive Instruction Delivery 16(4), 3 10 (2004) 3. IMS Global Learning Consortium: IMS Learning Information Package Accessibility for LIP (2002), 4. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): ISO/IEC Information technology Individualized adaptability and accessibility in e-learning, education and training (2008) 5. Inclusive Design Research Centre (IDRC/IDI): ATutor (2010), 6. IMS Global Learning Consortium: IMS AccessForAll Meta-Data (2004), 7. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Information technology Individualized adaptability and accessibility in e-learning, education and training Part 3: Access for all digital resource description (2008a) 8. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Information technology Individualized adaptability and accessibility in e-learning, education and training Part 2: Access for all personal needs and preferences for digital delivery (2008b)

15 Beyond Standards: Unleashing Accessibility on a Learning Content Management System Gay, G.R., Mirri, S., Salomoni, P., Roccetti, M.: Adapting Learning Environments with Access For All. In: 6th ACM International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A 2009) - 18th ACM International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2009), Madrid, Spain, April 2009, pp ACM Press, New York (2009) 10. Mirri, S., Gay, G.R., Salomoni, P., Roccetti, M.: Meeting learners preferences: implementing content adaptability in e-learning. In: New Learning Technologies Conference (2009) 11. IMS Global Learning Consortium: IMS Content Packaging Specification (2003), Salomoni, P., Mirri, S., Ferretti, S., Roccetti, M.: Profiling Learners with Special Needs for Custom E-Learning Experiences, a Closed Case? In: International Cross-Disciplinary Conference on Web Accessibility (W4A 2007) 16th ACM International World Wide Web Conference (WWW 2007), Banff, Alberta, Canada, April 2007, pp ACM Press, New York (2007) 13. Nevile, L., Cooper, M., Health, A., Rothberg, M., Treviranus, J.: Learner-centred Accessibility for Interoperable Web-based Educational Systems. In: 14th International World Wide Web Conference. ACM Press, New York (2005) 14. Santos, O.C., Boticario, J.G.: Improving learners satisfaction in specification-based scenarios with dynamic inclusive support. In: 8th IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, pp IEEE Press, New York (2008) 15. Anido-Rifon, L.: Accessibility and Supporting Technologies in M-Learning Standardization. In: 3th IEEE International Conference on Systems, pp IEEE Press, New York (2008) 16. World Wide Web Consortium: Composite Capability/Preference Profiles (CC/PP): Structure and Vocabularies 1.0 (2004), Garcia-Robles, R., Diaz del Rio, F., Civit, A., Prieto, J.A.: Promoting accessibility by using metadata in the framework of a semantic-web driven CMS. In: International Conference on Dublin Core and Metadata Applications, pp (2005) 18. Web-4-all Project,