- From: Liddy Nevile <liddy@sunriseresearch.org>
- Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2013 16:31:32 +1000
- To: Madeleine Rothberg <madeleine_rothberg@wgbh.org>
- Cc: "kcoyle@kcoyle.net" <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Madeleine, 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... Liddy 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