RE: Two important drafts to review.

I assume that it would not be possible to substitute the (possibly unfamiliar) symbols that represent a passage of text with symbols from a different (familiar) symbol set if the two symbol sets differ significantly "in style and linguistic elements". There would, presumably, be no one-to-one mappings between symbols and frequently some of the words or concepts represented in one set would probably not be directly represented in the other set.



In your experience (E A or anyone else), are there families of symbol sets that are sufficiently similar in terms of style and linguistic elements that automatic substitution of all the (possibly unfamiliar) symbols that convey the meaning of a passage of text with equivalent symbols from the user's preferred set of symbols, if their set comes from the same family, would lead to a successful outcome? Could this work well enough to preserve the meaning of the passage of text in an adequate manner?



It is clear that simple personalization schemes to swap one set of symbols for another will not work successfully in all cases (e.g. when the symbol sets differ significantly "in style and linguistic elements"). Unless there are symbols sets that are similar "in style and linguistic elements" to other symbol sets (i.e. families of conceptually similar symbol sets), then there will be no circumstances where the conceptually simple idea of swapping one set of symbols for another based on user preferences will deliver a coherent outcome. We really need to understand whether suitably compatible symbol sets ("families") exist before offering a solution that relies on this being the case.



Making substitutions based on user preferences will always work well in many other cases (e.g. fonts, colours, positive/negative contrast, etc.), so there is nothing wrong with the COGA TF promoting this idea in general - indeed it is an excellent idea.



Best regards



Mike



-----Original Message-----

From: EA Draffan [mailto:ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk]

Sent: 09 October 2015 15:09

To: Steve Lee <steve@opendirective.com<mailto:steve@opendirective.com>>

Cc: Jamie Knight <Jamie.Knight@bbc.co.uk<mailto:Jamie.Knight@bbc.co.uk>>; public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>>; lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com>>; Rochford, John <john.rochford@umassmed.edu<mailto:john.rochford@umassmed.edu>>

Subject: Re: Two important drafts to review.



I also agree. There are ARASAAC and SCLERA as Creative Commons symbol sets but very different in style and linguistic elements.



Best wishes

E.A.

Sent from my mobile phone



On 9 Oct 2015, at 13:56, Steve Lee <steve@opendirective.com<mailto:steve@opendirective.com<mailto:steve@opendirective.com%3cmailto:steve@opendirective.com>>> wrote:





+1



Though Garry has passed straight-street pending much needed resources.



Steve Lee

Sent from my mobile device Please excuse typing errors



On 9 Oct 2015 12:33, "Jamie Knight" <Jamie.Knight@bbc.co.uk<mailto:Jamie.Knight@bbc.co.uk<mailto:Jamie.Knight@bbc.co.uk%3cmailto:Jamie.Knight@bbc.co.uk>>> wrote:

Helo,



+1 to:



"I don't agree with the following. I don't think any recommendation will be widely / sufficiently adopted if it requires people with disabilities to purchase something."



IMHO We should work in the open via things like Straight Street and the noun project.



Jamie + Lion

_______________________________________

From: Rochford, John [john.rochford@umassmed.edu<mailto:john.rochford@umassmed.edu>]

Sent: 09 October 2015 12:14

To: lisa.seeman; public-cognitive-a11y-tf

Subject: RE: Two important drafts to review.



Hi Lisa and All,







There's a lot to like about the drafts. I think the explanations and the examples are good. Grammar issues will have to be resolved in the final version.







I think we should be sure what we are proposing cannot be accomplished within ARIA's current capabilities. I believe this is in line w/ Rich's previous comments.







I wonder if our proposal will be obviated by GPII, as Steve may be suggesting.







I don't agree with the following. I don't think any recommendation will be widely / sufficiently adopted if it requires people with disabilities to purchase something.







"That means the end use (sic) could buy the symbols and use them across different devices or applications."



John



John Rochford<http://profiles.umassmed.edu/profiles/display/132901>

UMass Medical School/E.K. Shriver Center Director, INDEX Program Instructor, Family Medicine & Community Health www.DisabilityInfo.org<http://www.DisabilityInfo.org<http://www.DisabilityInfo.org%3chttp:/www.DisabilityInfo.org>>

Twitter: @ClearHelper<https://twitter.com/clearhelper>

[Facebook Button]<http://www.facebook.com/pages/New-England-INDEXShriver-CenterUMass-Medical-School/227064920160>[Twitter Button]<https://twitter.com/NEINDEX> [WordPress Logo] <http://www.disabilityinfo.org/blog/>







-----Original Message-----

From: lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com><mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com%3cmailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com%3e>]

Sent: Saturday, October 03, 2015 9:27 PM

To: public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org<mailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org%3cmailto:public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>>>

Subject: Two important drafts to review.







Hi Folks







I pulled together the conclusions for this weeks call, and the other emails going back and forth, to make a new version of the adaptable links and buttons issue paper. I think it is now ready to be a proposal for WAI-ARIA extension for COGA.



Please take a look and tell me what else it needs to be submitted as a first draft for ARIA to look at.



see : https://rawgit.com/w3c/coga/master/issue-papers/links-buttons.html







When we have it all together it is easier to  see if there are  issues. So please review it carefully.







I also pulled out of the draft of the gap analysis the content that is relevant for a WCAG extension. See https://www.w3.org/WAI/PF/cognitive-a11y-tf/wiki/Proposal_for_WCAG



I think we should review it and then ask WCAG if this is in the right direction.







Taking these two pieces out of the gap analysis may allow us more time to work on the other issue papers without delaying the dependent deadlines for WCAG or ARIA.











All the best







Lisa Seeman







Athena ICT Accessibility Projects <http://accessibility.athena-ict.com>



LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/> , Twitter <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>