- From: DCMI <sasutton@dublincore.net>
- Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 20:34:19 -0400
- To: Phil Barker <phil.barker@hw.ac.uk>
- Cc: "public-schema-course-extend@w3.org" <public-schema-course-extend@w3.org>
I'm happy to leave accessibility to the people who understand it best. Stuart Sent from my iPhone > On Aug 18, 2016, at 10:30 AM, Phil Barker <phil.barker@hw.ac.uk> wrote: > > Hello again, I propose that we do not address accessibility requirements as part of the course extension (we can use properties inherited from more general accessibility work). > > > We have use cases relating to accessibility at https://www.w3.org/community/schema-course-extend/wiki/Outline_use_cases > > namely that it should be possible to find course where the searcher is concerned about physical and cognitive accessibility features, controls, API, hazards. > > This leads to requirements around identifyingaccessibility features, controls, API, hazards of resources (i.e. CreativeWorks) used in delivering the course, in any Events that are part of the course and at any locations where the events are held. > > There are other people with specialist knowledge for accessibility who have dealt with the accessibility of CreativeWorks (so we can just apply that to Course and to any materials used in the course), and there is an open issue relating to accessibility of Places (and hence events at those places), https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/254 > > So, are we happy to leave accessibility to the accessibility people and use the outputs of their work for Course and CourseInstance as they are inherited from CreativeWork, Event etc.? > > Phil > > > -- > Phil Barker @philbarker > LRMI, Cetis, ICBL http://people.pjjk.net/phil > Heriot-Watt University > > Workflow: http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/workflow/ > >
Received on Friday, 19 August 2016 00:34:50 UTC