W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-digipub-ig@w3.org > March 2014

Re: Annotation Accessibility Use Cases...

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:15:11 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUGF9o_M7jr0hhr5+jBqtOxjyM=tBaguHu+hVx2F1e2zWQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Gerardo Capiel <gerardoc@benetech.org>
Cc: Suzanne Taylor <suzanne.taylor@pearson.com>, Anh Bui <anhb@benetech.org>, Richard Schwerdtfeger <schwer@us.ibm.com>, W3C Digital Publishing IG <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>, Thea Eaton <thea@doodledoo.com>, Markus Gylling <markus.gylling@gmail.com>
Hi Gerardo,

Thanks for the link and thoughts! :)

Regarding 5 through 8, and inlining them here for ease of discussion, I
hope that's okay...

>>> 5.  Support for HTML markup to describe complex images such as pie
charts with tables.

The body of the annotation can be of any format in the current OA data
model. This is implicit in 2.1.4, but I'll call it out more explicitly.
 That said, 2.1.1 does talk about HTML and I could simply remove the
"basic" adjective (as what is "basic HTML" anyway?)

>>> 6. Support for MathML to transcribe images that are mathematical
formulas (MathML is supported by various Assistive Technologies.)

As 5.  I can change one of the examples to explicitly call out MathML

>>> 7. Metadata to identify the descriptions as alternatives or
transcriptions of inaccessible or poorly described visual content.

Metadata about the comment or target resource I think is in the scope of
the metadata taskforce, rather than the annotation taskforce? But I'd be
interested to hear Bill's thoughts on that?

The alternatives use cases are: 2.2.6,  2.3.7,  and 2.5.1.  If there's some
annotation specific metadata about the transcription/alternative, then I
think we should include it in 2.5.1 or a new 2.5.2

>>> 8. A mechanism for original publishers to query, analyze and integrate
"crowdsourced" descriptions and transcriptions created by annotation in
order to pull those back into the original content.

Yup, I have this exact requirement elsewhere as well -- images of medieval
manuscripts are very inaccessible, even to perfectly able scholars :)  I
think it's covered, broadly, by 2.4.3.  We could create a new use case that
focuses on bringing the data back to the publisher though, rather than the
more generic "system" transfer.


On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Gerardo Capiel <gerardoc@benetech.org>wrote:

>  *Robert* - I took a look at the Annotations Use Cases document on the
> W3C GitHub.  The accessibility use cases<http://w3c.github.io/dpub-annotation/#using-annotation-for-contributing-accessibility-information> looked
> good overall.  I checked them against the technical requirements 1-4 in the
> below position paper I recently submitted for the W3C Workshop and they
> seem to be covered.  It's less clear to me whether requirements 5-8 in the
> the position paper are covered, so I would appreciate your thoughts:
> http://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/39156804/benetech_annotation_position.html
>  *Suzanne* - I'd be curious as to your thoughts on #8.
>  Thank You,
>  Gerardo
>  Gerardo Capiel
> VP of Engineering
> benetech
>  650-644-3405 - Twitter: @gcapiel <http://twitter.com/gcapiel> - GPG:
> 0x859F11C4
> Fork, Code, Do Social Good: http://benetech.github.com/
Received on Monday, 3 March 2014 18:15:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:35:49 UTC