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

Notes from 10/7 accessibility metadata conference call, preparation for 10/8 9;00 AM PDT call

From: Charles Myers <charlesm@benetech.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Oct 2013 06:29:48 -0700
Message-ID: <525408CC.7020205@benetech.org>
To: "a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com" <a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
The accessibility metadata group met yesterday.  A few things took place 
that are worth reviewing before our call on 10/8:

1) We decided that accessHazard should have both positive and negative 
assertions of the hazards.  This change has been made in the spec and in 
the issue tracker 
http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility/Issues_Tracker#accessHazard_-_Ok_as_is.2C_or_should_it_be_negated_in_sense_or_allow_a_.22none.22.3F

2) We had a long discussion on the utility and complexity of 
mediaFeature, as we'd like to pin down one part of the accessMode, 
mediaFeature, is/hasAdaptation set of concepts.  To make this discussion 
simpler, I have rewritten (just a proposal) the mediafeatures into the 
four sensory modes (visual, auditory, tactile, textual) and two types 
(transform and content).  With this more finely grained structure, it 
should be easier to have a discussion on these features.
See 
http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility/Issues_Tracker#What_is_the_goal_of_mediaFeature.3F_.28conforming_or_informational.29_Do_we_have_this_right.3F 
and the table near the bottom of that item.

Let's be ready to discuss #2 in more detail, and then moving to 
something closely aligned to mediaFeatures, which is the accessAPI and 
controlFlexibility for applications.  This is #10 on the list 
http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility/Issues_Tracker#softwareApplication_properties:_accessAPI_and_controlFlexibility.2C_ok_or_not.3F
Received on Tuesday, 8 October 2013 13:30:44 UTC

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