W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org > October 2015

RE: Two important drafts to review.

From: EA Draffan <ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2015 13:09:53 +0000
To: "lisa.seeman" <lisa.seeman@zoho.com>, Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
CC: Steve Lee <steve@opendirective.com>, Jamie Knight <Jamie.Knight@bbc.co.uk>, public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>, "Rochford, John" <john.rochford@umassmed.edu>
Message-ID: <7181A95B72F5B04C94BEF10CEC91E79618A2DC4A@SRV00047.soton.ac.uk>
I think the mapping would be possible if all the commercial symbol sets shared an ontology that allowed the symbol to symbol matching to take place.  It is possible to develop this type of metadata as the symbol sets all have certain signature elements for grammar etc (parts of speech such as arrows for past and future and plurals) but these are not the same when working in different languages.  So take Arabic and English the arrow direction is reversed for past and future as the language is written from right to left.   However, I am sure that could also be tagged!

Bliss and the pictogram type symbol sets are very different and then you have the sets that work mainly with phrases rather than a one to one word correspondence.   There is compaction where phrases are represented by one symbol etc.  There are also cases of one to many where a word can be represented by several different symbols because of a change in meaning such as ‘bow’ which depends on context and this is particularly so in Arabic.

All these issues can be supported by the appropriate metadata, but it is a huge job (time = funding?) and Chaohai and I have discussed this on many occasions.  We even presented the idea at a conference last year. We have tried to make a Symbol Dragoman to test the principle.  http://www.slideshare.net/eadraffan/symbol-dragoman-overview.  One of our PhD students has been working on the concept of symbol to text in Arabic.  There is lots on research into the reverse mainly based on concept coding. Frameworks.

Best wishes

Mrs E.A. Draffan
WAIS, ECS , University of Southampton
Mobile +44 (0)7976 289103
UK AAATE rep http://www.aaate.net/


From: lisa.seeman [mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com]
Sent: 12 October 2015 05:11
To: Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>
Cc: EA Draffan <ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk>; Steve Lee <steve@opendirective.com>; Jamie Knight <Jamie.Knight@bbc.co.uk>; public-cognitive-a11y-tf <public-cognitive-a11y-tf@w3.org>; Rochford, John <john.rochford@umassmed.edu>
Subject: RE: Two important drafts to review.

Hi Michael
yes - this is the problem. that is why it is only a technique under development and not yet a recommended technique.
We are trying to circumvent this problem in a few ways - you can read some of them in the ftf minuets. we Came Across and new ones ... I think EA and her team are working on some of these issues (for Arabic symbols, which is an extremely hard use case.)

All the best Lisa Seeman Athena ICT Accessibility Projects <http://accessibility.athena-ict.com> LinkedIn, Twitter<https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>

On Mon ----, 12 Oct 2015 01:11:13 +0300 Michael Pluke <Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com<mailto:Mike.Pluke@castle-consult.com>> Wrote ----

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 (EA 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 (eg when the symbol sets differ significantly "in style and linguistic elements"). NULL unless there are symbols sets That are Similar "in style and linguistic elements" to other symbol sets (ie 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 (eg 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


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

From: EA Draffan [mailto: <mailto:ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk> Ead@ecs.soton.ac.uk<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>>; -cognitive-public 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


Sent from my mobile phone

9 Oct 2015 On, at 13:56, Steve Lee> >> Wrote:


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

Steve Lee

Sent from my mobile device Please excuse typing errors

9 Oct 2015 On 12:33, "Jamie Knight" <>> Wrote:


+1 To:

"I do not agree with the following. I do not 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> <mailto: 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 can not 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 do not agree with the following. I do not 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."


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

UMass Medical School / EK Shriver Center Director, INDEX Instructor Program, Family Medicine & Community Health http://www.DisabilityInfo.org>

Twitter:ClearHelper <Https://twitter.com/clearhelper>

[Facebook Button] <Https://twitter.com/NEINDEX><https://twitter.com/NEINDEX> [WordPress Logo] <Http://www.disabilityinfo.org/blog/>

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

From: Lisa.seeman ["> mailto: Lisa.seeman@zoho.com <mailto: <mailto:lisa.seeman@zoho.com> Lisa.seeman@zoho.com<mailto:Lisa.seeman@zoho.com>>]

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

To: public-cognitive-A11y-tf <>>

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<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<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

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

LinkedIn <Http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/><http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/> Twitter <Https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>

Received on Monday, 12 October 2015 13:11:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 12 October 2015 13:11:54 UTC