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

Re: Schema.org accessibility proposal Review...

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:43:11 +0100
Message-ID: <522C7EEF.6050803@kcoyle.net>
To: Liddy Nevile <liddy@sunriseresearch.org>
CC: public-vocabs@w3.org
Liddy,

Now I see what you mean. And it is very complex. Are a printed page, a 
photo of a page, a gif with some letters, and digital document all text?

The Dublin Core type vocabulary says:

"Text: Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, 
newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or 
images of texts are still of the genre Text."

But I think is is assuming that the user is sighted. There are many 
gradations, both of text and of sightedness -- with a magnifying glass 
some VIPs (visually impaired persons) can read non-digital text, but if 
it is unclear, or on a medium that does not fit with their reading device...

I think it may be necessary to have "visually accessible text" vs. 
"machine-interpretable text". I can't imagine how you would fill in all 
of the variations.

Good luck! :-)

kc

On 9/8/13 2:13 PM, Liddy Nevile wrote:
> Karen
> I am just trying to understand the difference between text for reading -
> that can be rendered in lots of ways, say, and text on an image that can
> be 'read' but not rendered ... etc.
>
> Liddy
>
> On 08/09/2013, at 10:40 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 9/8/13 7:49 AM, Liddy Nevile wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> One of the problems that has arisen is that we have not managed the
>>> requirement of 'reading' in previous work. That one has to see text is a
>>> different thing from it being necessary for it to be read. So I want to
>>> know how we should make it clear that 'reading is required'.
>>
>>
>> Liddy, I'm not sure that this is the place to bring in literacy and
>> levels of literacy. After all, if there is sound, but it is sound in a
>> language I do not understand, then "hearing" is not the whole
>> requirement.
>>
>> The education community deals some with the idea of reading
>> /understanding levels -- obviously, you don't want to give an
>> 8-year-old a college-level calculus text. For accessibility, I hope
>> that designating "text" or "sound" will be sufficient, and that most
>> data will have elsewhere information about what language(s) are
>> available and perhaps the required or preferred reading level of the
>> user.
>>
>> kc
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Also, what does it mean to have an 'allText' version as one of the
>>> available minimal sets.
>>>
>>> I think that there are lots of versions available is interesting to
>>> users (ie so they know it will be multimedia and, therefore by defn,
>>> interesting :-)) but it is also important to know that there is a
>>> version that requires only vision and reading, esp for those with
>>> hearing limitations, or only vision and hearing for those who can't
>>> read, etc.
>>>
>>> Also, I acknowledge that we have confused the logic a bit by having too
>>> much in accessMode. This is internal conflict, I think.
>>>
>>> I am now working on the idea of having seeing, hearing, touching, and
>>> reading as the base senses and then building a taxonomy by working in
>>> refinements of these so we can get to the detail that some might want.
>>> In fact, I think they should be able to specify more refinements (in the
>>> ISO case add them to the registry, perhaps) but that when a specific,
>>> detailed term is used, we will need to know how to work back up the
>>> taxonomy  to whatever is available eg if I have a requirement for
>>> fontsize 10 of MS Comic in yellow on blue, at least a system will know
>>> my requirements are related to seeing...
>>>
>>> I am not sure there is an easy way to specify all the permutations and
>>> combinations of minimal sets of accessModes for a resource even if that
>>> is a repeatable term.
>>>
>>> I find it hard to accept that in all cases the 'original' exists or
>>> makes sense so the solution of using accessMode and accessFeature (or
>>> mediaFeature) does not work well for me.
>>>
>>> Finally, there is the idea that the concepts we use for describing
>>> people's needs should be the same as we use for characteristics of the
>>> resource/service. I have tried to work with this but perhaps it is not
>>> the best way to go?
>>>
>>> Liddy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Karen Coyle
>> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> m: 1-510-435-8234
>> skype: kcoylenet
>>
>
>

-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Sunday, 8 September 2013 13:43:48 UTC

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