RE: Annotation Accessibility Use Cases...

Re:
>>> 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?

Yes, I agree this belongs as a metadata use case. Good example of the intersection of metadata and accessibility that I mentioned on last week's call.

From: Robert Sanderson [mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2014 1:15 PM
To: Gerardo Capiel
Cc: Suzanne Taylor; Anh Bui; Richard Schwerdtfeger; W3C Digital Publishing IG; Thea Eaton; Markus Gylling
Subject: Re: Annotation Accessibility Use Cases...


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 though?

>>> 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.


Rob


On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 11:01 AM, Gerardo Capiel <gerardoc@benetech.org<mailto: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<tel:650-644-3405> - Twitter: @gcapiel<http://twitter.com/gcapiel> - GPG: 0x859F11C4
Fork, Code, Do Social Good: http://benetech.github.com/