Advertisement

World Wide Web

, Volume 13, Issue 1–2, pp 143–167 | Cite as

Building a Usable and Accessible Semantic Web Interaction Platform

  • Roberto García
  • Juan Manuel Gimeno
  • Ferran Perdrix
  • Rosa Gil
  • Marta Oliva
  • Juan Miguel López
  • Afra Pascual
  • Montserrat Sendín
Article

Abstract

Semantic Web applications take off is being slower than expected, at least with respect to “real-world” applications and users. One of the main reasons for this lack of adoption is that most Semantic Web user interfaces are still immature from the usability and accessibility points of view. This is due to the novelty of these technologies, but this also motivates the exploration of alternative interaction paradigms, different from the “traditional” Web or Desktop applications ones. Our proposal is realized in the Rhizomer platform, which explores the possibilities of the object–action interaction paradigm at the Web scale. This paradigm is well suited for heterogeneous resource spaces such as those common in the Semantic Web. Resources, described by metadata, correspond to the objects in the paradigm. Semantic web services, which are dynamically associated to these objects, correspond to the actions. The platform is being put into practice in the context of a research project in order to build an open application for media distribution based on Semantic Web technologies. Moreover, its usability and accessibility have been evaluated in this real setting and compared to similar systems.

Keywords

Semantic Web interaction usability accessibility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Arrue, M., Vigo, M., Abascal J.: Quantitative metrics for web accessibility evaluation. In: Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Web Metrics and Measurement (WMM05). Sydney, Australia (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Auer, S., Bizer, C., Kobilarov, G., Lehmann, J., Cyganiak, R., Ives, Z.: DBpedia: A Nucleus for a Web of Open Data. In: The Semantic Web, ISWC/ASCW’07, LNCS, vol. 4825, pp. 722–735. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berners-Lee et al.: Exploring and analyzing linked dates on the semantic web. In: Proc. of the 3rd International Semantic Web User Interaction Workshop (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bojars, U., Passant, A., Giasson, F., Breslin, J.G.: An architecture to discover and query decentralized RDF data. In: Proceedings of the ESWC’07 Workshop on Scripting for the Semantic Web, SFSW 2007. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, vol. 248. (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brajnik, G.: Automatic testing, page sampling and measuring web accessibility. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Annual Int. Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference, CSUN’08. Los Angeles, CA (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruner, J.: Acts of Meaning. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (1990)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Caldwell, B., Cooper, M., Guarino, L., Vanderheiden, G.: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 Recommendation. Retrieved on June 2009 from: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/
  8. 8.
    Corcho, O., López-Cima, A., Gómez-Pérez, A.: The ODESeW 2.0 semantic web application framework. In: Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on World Wide Web, WWW ’06, pp. 1049–1050. ACM Press (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Craig, J., Cooper, M., Pappas, L., Schwerdtfeger, R., Seeman, L.: Accessible Rich Internet Applications (WAI-ARIA) 1.0 Working draft. Retrieved on June 2009 from: http://www.w3.org/TR/wai-aria/
  10. 10.
    Crane, D., Pascarello, E., James, D.: Ajax in Action. Manning Publications, (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eurostat: Health Statistics. Office for Oficial Publications of the European Communities, 2002. Retrieved from: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-08-02-002/EN/KS-08-02-002-EN.PDF
  12. 12.
    Evaluating Web Sites for Accessibility: Overview. Retrieved on June 2009 from: http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/conformance.html
  13. 13.
    Farrell, J., Lausen, H. (eds.): Semantic Annotations for WSDL and XML Schema. W3C Working Draft, 2007. http://www.w3.org/TR/sawsdl
  14. 14.
    Forrest, B.: Google Deprecates Their SOAP Search API. O’Reilly Radar, December 18, 2006. http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/12/google_depreciates_SOAP_API.html
  15. 15.
    García, R., Gil, R.: A web ontology for copyright contracts management. Int J Electron Commer 12(4), 103–117 (2008)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    García, R., Gimeno, J.M.: Open Platform for Multichannel Media Distribution Management HTML. Position paper, W3C Workshop on the Future of Social Networking, 15–16 January. Barcelona, Spain (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    García, R., Gimeno, J.M., Perdrix, F., Gil, R., Oliva, M.: A platform for object–action semantic web interaction. In: 16th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management Knowledge Patterns, EKAW’08. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 5268, pp. 404–418. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    García, R., Gimeno, J.M., Perdrix, F., Gil, R., Oliva, M.: The Rhizomer semantic content management system. In : 1st World Summit on the Knowledge Society (WSKS 2008). Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence, vol. 5288, pp. 385–394. Springer (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    García, R., Tsinaraki, C., Celma, O., Christodoulakis, S.: Multimedia content description using Semantic Web languages. In: Kompatsiaris Y., Hobson, P. (eds.) Semantic Multimedia and Ontologies: Theory and Applications, pp. 17–54. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    González, M., Masip, L., Granollers, T., Oliva, M.: Quantitative analysis in a heuristic evaluation experiment. Advances in Engineering Software. (2009, in press)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Granollers, T.: User Centred Design Process Model: Integration of Usability Engineering and Software Engineering. Doctoral Consortium, INTERACT’03, Zurich (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Heath, T., Domingue, J., Shabajee, P.: User interaction and uptake challenges to successfully deploying Semantic Web technologies. In: Proc. 3rd International Semantic Web User Interaction Workshop. Athens, Georgia, USA (2006)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hildebrand, M., Ossenbruggen, J., Hardman, L.: /facet: a browser for heterogeneous Semantic Web repositories. In: Proc. of the International Semantic Web Conference 2006. Lecture Notices in Computer Science, vol. 4273, pp. 272–285. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Huynh, D.F., Karger, D.R., Miller, R. C.: Exhibit: lightweight structured data publishing. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, pp. 737–746. Banff, Alberta, Canada, ACM (2007)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    ISO 9241-11. ISO 9241-11. Ergonomic Req. Part 11: Guidance on Usability. ISO 9241-11 (1998)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jeffries, R., Miller, J.R., Wharton, C., Uyeda, K.M.: User interface evaluation in the real world: A comparison of four techniques. In: Proceedings ACM CHI’91 Conference, pp. 119–124. New Orleans, LA (1991)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Krötzsch, M., Vrandečić, D., Völkel, M.: Semantic MediaWiki. In : Proceedings of the Int. Semantic Web Conference, ISWC’06. LNCS vol. 4273, pp. 935–942. Springer (2006)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Maguitman, A.G., Menczer, F., Erdinc, F., Roinestad, H., Vespignani, A.: Algorithmic computation and approximation of semantic similarity. World Wide Web 9(4), 431–456 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Martin, D. (ed.): OWL-S: Semantic Markup for Web Services. W3C Member Submission, 2004. http://www.w3.org/Submission/OWL-S
  30. 30.
    Mukherjee, S., Ramakrishnan, I.V.: Automated semantic analysis of schematic data. World Wide Web 11(4), 427–464 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. AP Professional, Boston (1993)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Nielsen J.: Severity ratings for usability problems. useit.com: usable information technology, 1995. Available from: http://www.useit.com/papers/heuristic/severityrating.html
  33. 33.
    Nielsen, J., Mack, R.L.: Usability inspection methods. Wiley, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nielsen, J., Molich, R.: Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In: Proc. of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM Press (1990)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Preliminary Review of Web Sites for Accessibility. Retrieved on June 2009 from: http://www.w3.org/WAI/eval/preliminary.html
  36. 36.
    Prud’hommeaux, E., Seaborne, A.: SPARQL Query Language for RDF. W3C Recommendation, World Wide Web Consortium, 2008. Available from http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sparql-query
  37. 37.
    Quan, D., Huynh, D., Karger, D.: Haystack: a platform for authoring end user Semantic Web applications. In: The SemanticWeb—ISWC 2003. Lecture Notices in Computer Science, vol. 2870, pp. 738–753. Springer (2003)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Raskin, J.: The Human Interface. Addison Wesley, Munchen (2000)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Richardson, L., Ruby, S.: Restful Web Services. O’Reilly, Cambridge, MA (2007)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Roman, D., Keller, O., Lausen, H., de Bruijn, J., Lara, R., Stollberg, M., et al.: Web service modeling ontology. Applied Ontology 1(1), 77–106 (2005)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Shadbolt, N., Hall, W., Berners-Lee, T.: The Semantic Web revisited. Intelligent Systems 21(3), 96–101 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sullivan, T., Matson, R.: Barriers to use: usability and content accessibility on the web’s most popular sites. In: Proc. of ACM Conference on Universal Usability, pp. 139–144. (2000)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Tejedor, J., García, R., Fernández, M., López, F., Perdrix, F., Macías, J.A., Gil, R., Oliva, M., Moya, D., Colás, J., Castells, P.: Ontology-based retrieval of human speech. In: Proc. of the 6th International Workshop on Web Semantics, WebS’07. IEEE Computer Society Press (2007)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Tidwell, J.: Designing Interfaces: Patterns for Effective Interaction Design. O’Reilly (2005)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tummarello, G., Morbidoni, C., Puliti, P., Piazza, F.: Signing individual fragments of an RDF graph. In: Proceedings of the WWW 2005 Conference, pp. 1020–1021. (2005)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Velleman, E., Velasco, C., Snaprud, M., Burger, D. (eds.): (2006) Unified Web Evaluation Methodology (UWEM 1.0). Retrieved on November 2008 from: http://www.wabcluster.org/uwem1/UWEM_1_0.pdf
  47. 47.
    Web Accessibility Evaluation Tools, Complete List. Retrieved on June 2009 from: http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/tools/complete
  48. 48.
    Weerawarana, S., Curbera, F., Leymann, F., Storey, T., Ferguson, D.F.: Web Services Platform Architecture: SOAP, WSDL, WS-Policy, WS-Addressing, WS-BPEL, WS-Reliable Messaging, and More. Prentice Hall (2005)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    World Wide Web Consortium (W3C): Web Content Acessibility Guidelines 1.0, 1999. Retrieved on June 2009 from: http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10/

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roberto García
    • 1
  • Juan Manuel Gimeno
    • 1
  • Ferran Perdrix
    • 1
    • 2
  • Rosa Gil
    • 1
  • Marta Oliva
    • 1
  • Juan Miguel López
    • 1
  • Afra Pascual
    • 1
  • Montserrat Sendín
    • 1
  1. 1.Universitat of LleidaLleidaSpain
  2. 2.Segre Media GroupLleidaSpain

Personalised recommendations