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

Re: accessHazard

From: Liddy Nevile <liddy@sunriseresearch.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:24:47 +1000
Cc: "a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com" <a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-Id: <0689394A-715F-4C33-81F0-86B232A4D133@sunriseresearch.org>
To: Madeleine Rothberg <madeleine_rothberg@wgbh.org>
oh, I am not sure we can have values like yes and no for open searches  
etc ....

As I see it, the tricky part of designing metadata is finding the  
right way to be consistent and still convey a useful message - very  
tricky.

For example, we could define the term accessHazard as one only to be  
used where there has been evaluation of the resource - then we cut it  
down to two possibilities for flashing. Charles has argued that it is  
more likely to be correct if it is used to show there isn't a hazard  
than that there is. I am not sure of this (too old to think this one  
through) but I am concerned that if a new accessMedia is added, it  
might add a hazard to a resource that didn't have one.

There is more thinking to do and I am happy to go with the flow on  
this..

Liddy

On 02/10/2013, at 6:38 AM, Madeleine Rothberg wrote:

> 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 Wednesday, 2 October 2013 00:25:28 UTC

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