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

Re: [a11y-metadata-project] Re: Schema.org accessibility proposal Review...

From: Andy Heath <andyheath@axelrod.plus.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 13:09:53 +0100
Message-ID: <522C6911.5050705@axelrod.plus.com>
To: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>
CC: "a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com" <a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com>, "<public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org>, Gerardo Capiel <gerardoc@benetech.org>, Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Alexander Shubin <ajax@yandex-team.ru>, Egor Antonov <elderos@yandex-team.ru>, Liddy Nevile <liddy@sunriseresearch.org>, Charles Myers <charlesm@benetech.org>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, George Kerscher <kerscher@montana.com>, Jason Johnson <jasjoh@microsoft.com>, Matt Garrish <matt.garrish@bell.net>
Sorry, the meaning is a bit entwined with the threading structure and I 
can't find
an easy way to separate it from the thread - I'm responding to Chaals' 
point on the interpretation of multiple accessMode tags.

>
>> Chaals quoted (and wrote a little bit of):
>>>>> = accessMode =
>>>>
>>>>> It should be possible for a "single resource" to be available with
>>>>> more than one *set* of accessModes.
>>>>
>>>> I agree and this is the design.  A single resource can require one or
>>>> more accessMode(s).
>>>
>>> Yes, but...
>>>
>>>> … the accessMode property describes "Human sensory perceptual system
>>>> or cognitive faculty through which a person may process or perceive
>>>> information." […]
>>>> We have also published a best practices and an implementation guide on
>>>> the use of accessMode at:
>>>> <http://www.a11ymetadata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/A11yMetadataProjectBestPracticesGuide_V.6.pdf>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://wiki.benetech.org/display/a11ymetadata/Practical+Properties+Guide>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Chaals wrote:
>>
>>> Yep. But that has an example which I'll use:
>>>
>>> A movie with captions and extended audio description would be encoded as
>>> follows
>>> <div itemscope=”” itemtype=”http://schema.org/Movie”>
>>> <meta itemprop=”accessMode” content=”visual”/>
>>> <meta itemprop=”accessMode” content=”auditory”/>
>>> <meta itemprop=”mediaFeature” content=”audioDescription”/>
>>> <meta itemprop=”mediaFeature” content=”captions”/>
>>> </div>
>>>
>>> My first impression is that if the video has good audio description,
>>> then claiming it has accessMode "visual" seems wrong, since you don't
>>> need to see it. Likewise, since it is captioned, it seems you don't need
>>> to hear it.
>>>
>>> So it doesn't have a single *required* accessMode. On the other hand,
>>> you need to *either* see (clearly enough) or hear, in order to get the
>>> content.
>>
>> The interpretation we had in AfA 3.0 of each property like this was
>> that each specified not "accessMode required" but instead "accessMode
>> available".  Did this project take a different interpretation ?
>
> I got that impression by reading the best practices guide Gerardo
> pointed to above:
> <http://www.a11ymetadata.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/A11yMetadataProjectBestPracticesGuide_V.6.pdf>
>
>
>> I haven't yet read the rest of this because I'm trying to focus on the
>> same ISO meeting Chaals is in (but will do so) - this interpretation
>> is so crucial as to change the whole emphasis
>
> Indeed.
>
> On the other hand, if we don't take the view that an accessMode is
> required, I dont understand the logic that lets us match a resource to a
> user.

This is very subtle and it depends how the information is encoded in 
accessModes.
My interpretation of this particular tagging

 >>> <div itemscope=”” itemtype=”http://schema.org/Movie”>
 >>> <meta itemprop=”accessMode” content=”visual”/>
 >>> <meta itemprop=”accessMode” content=”auditory”/>
 >>> <meta itemprop=”mediaFeature” content=”audioDescription”/>
 >>> <meta itemprop=”mediaFeature” content=”captions”/>
 >>> </div>

would be

The entire information content of the resource is available in "visual" 
AND the entire information content is available in "auditory" AND the 
entire information content is available in "audioDescription" AND the 
entire information content is available in "captions".

We would then look for a preference that says which of the available 
accessModes can a user consume.

This particular tagging does seem unlikely (I cannot imagine a resource 
in which "the entire information content" is available in all of these 
types). More commonly in my experience some information is available in 
some types and some in others but there is not complete overlap. Maybe 
there need to be separate practices for each accessMode, I'm not sure. I 
have lamented for years that the practices are not well documented 
anywhere so this is a good place to do that and these discussions need 
to happen.

Does this interpretation make logical sense to you Chaals ?

andy heath
axelafa.com
DiversityNet


>
>> so I wanted to reply quickly on this one point.
>>
>> andy
>> axelrod access for all
>> DiversityNet
>> http://axelafa.com
>
>




andy
andyheath@axelrod.plus.com
-- 
__________________
Andy Heath
http://axelafa.com
Received on Sunday, 8 September 2013 12:10:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:30 UTC