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

Re: Schema.org accessibility proposal Review...

From: Liddy Nevile <liddy@sunriseresearch.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 16:31:32 +1000
Cc: "kcoyle@kcoyle.net" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-Id: <7A310472-E568-4980-8F5B-BE00D67B543D@sunriseresearch.org>
To: Madeleine Rothberg <madeleine_rothberg@wgbh.org>

I know this but I think that being able to read is probably in the  
same class as being able to see, touch, etc ...previously I did not  
think like this...


On 09/09/2013, at 12:01 AM, Madeleine Rothberg wrote:

> Liddy,
> The current accessMode vocabulary addresses this issue. There is  
> "textual"
> which is machine-readable text that can be rendered in lots of ways,  
> and
> there is "textOnImage" which can only be read with vision. (I don't  
> know
> if my emails have been cleared for posting to the public-vocabs list  
> yet,
> so this may appear there later.)
> -Madeleine
> On 9/8/13 9:13 AM, "Liddy Nevile" <liddy@sunriseresearch.org> 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
Received on Monday, 9 September 2013 06:32:14 UTC

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