Re: Privacy implications of automatic alternative selection (Re: Acessibility of <audio> and <video>)

T.V. Raman wrote:

> This type of system should always be designed based on
> "capabilities" -- and *not* based on *dis*abilities.
>   

Correct, but I would reword this slightly, in the context of the IMS 
accessibility specifications that Jan referenced 
(http://www.imsglobal.org/accessibility/).

"This type of system should always be designed based on "*preferences*" 
-- and *not* on *dis*abilities".

The access-for-all IMS specs were developed *not* as a user "profile", 
but as user "preferences" and content "descriptions".  And, that was 
expressly done to avoid defining a user's abilities.  For example, a 
user declares they prefer large fonts.  That could mean they have poor 
vision.  Or, it could mean they intend to display the content on a 
screen in a lecture hall where larger print is needed for the seats in 
the back.  The inference from preferences to abilities is not a sound one.

If capabilities come into play here anywhere, it is with respect to the 
content.  For example, a video could be described as caption "capable".

-- 
;;;;joseph

'This is not war -- this is pest control!'
      - "Doomsday", Dalek Leader -