RE: Annotation Accessibility Use Cases...

Hi George,

Although it would not be in this document I am not seeing a plan for
mapping annotations to ones that can be accessed via a reader by assistive
technology users or disabled users who do not rely on an assistive
technology. We need to see what the mapping would be like from open
annotation to content markup to browser export to ATs. Does such a document
exist?

example:

Open annotation -> specific HTML/SVG/MathML/ARIA markup -> platform
accessibility API services and/or browser feature.

Rich


Rich Schwerdtfeger



From: "George Kerscher" <kerscher@montana.com>
To: "'Bill Kasdorf'" <bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com>, "'Robert
            Sanderson'" <azaroth42@gmail.com>, "'Gerardo Capiel'"
            <gerardoc@benetech.org>
Cc: "'Suzanne Taylor'" <suzanne.taylor@pearson.com>, "'Anh Bui'"
            <anhb@benetech.org>, Richard Schwerdtfeger/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
            "'W3C Digital Publishing IG'" <public-digipub-ig@w3.org>,
            "'Thea Eaton'" <thea@doodledoo.com>, "'Markus Gylling'"
            <markus.gylling@gmail.com>
Date: 03/04/2014 10:46 AM
Subject: RE: Annotation Accessibility Use Cases...



Hi All,





This looks good. Want to make sure the following is covered:





Not only dss offices etc., but organizations serving persons with
disabilities, e.g. the DAISY libraries who have traditionally distributed
whole books could possibly move to the distribution of annotations and
enhance the fundamentally accessible books.





Also, I would think that providing a link out to repositories of accessible
infographics would be a use for annotations; how would this work with
ARIA’s describedat?





I expect the metadata would help determine if an external resource is
targeted at persons who are blind, low vision,  dyslexic, learning
disabled, etc. Also, the term learning disabled is not used
internationally.





Best


George





From: Bill Kasdorf [mailto:bkasdorf@apexcovantage.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2014 2:30 AM
To: Robert Sanderson; Gerardo Capiel
Cc: Suzanne Taylor; Anh Bui; Richard Schwerdtfeger; W3C Digital Publishing
IG; Thea Eaton; Markus Gylling
Subject: 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>
wrote:


Robert - I took a look at the Annotations Use Cases document on the W3C
GitHub.  The accessibility use cases 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 - GPG: 0x859F11C4


Fork, Code, Do Social Good: http://benetech.github.com/