- From: Madeleine Rothberg <madeleine_rothberg@wgbh.org>
- Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2013 20:38:47 +0000
- To: "a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com" <a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Chuck has updated the issues list to include the discussion of whether accessHazard should state positive or negative information. See that post and my comments, which are also below, at: [http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility/Issues_Tracker#accessHazar d_-_Ok_as_is.2C_or_should_it_be_negated_in_sense.3F] I believe we need both accessHazard=flashing and accessHazard=noFlashing, etc.. This is because there are three cases we'd like to distinguish: 1. checked and it's fine 2. checked and it is NOT fine 3. didn't check "Didn't check" can be signified by no metadata -- this will be most of the content on the Web. In cases where someone has checked, let's record both positive and negative states. -Madeleine
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2013 20:39:20 UTC