W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > October 2013

accessHazard

From: Madeleine Rothberg <madeleine_rothberg@wgbh.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 20:38:47 +0000
To: "a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com" <a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-ID: <F40281431C2E4746837AD2D349E72F1128AB7BD4@WSMBX1.wgbh.org>
Chuck has updated the issues list to include the discussion of whether
accessHazard should state positive or negative information. See that post
and my comments, which are also below, at:
[http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility/Issues_Tracker#accessHazar
d_-_Ok_as_is.2C_or_should_it_be_negated_in_sense.3F]

I believe we need both accessHazard=flashing and accessHazard=noFlashing,
etc.. This is because there are three cases we'd like to distinguish:

1. checked and it's fine
2. checked and it is NOT fine
3. didn't check

"Didn't check" can be signified by no metadata -- this will be most of the
content on the Web. In cases where someone has checked, let's record both
positive and negative states.

-Madeleine
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2013 20:39:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:32 UTC