- From: Liddy Nevile <liddy@sunriseresearch.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2013 10:24:47 +1000
- To: Madeleine Rothberg <madeleine_rothberg@wgbh.org>
- Cc: "a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com" <a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
oh, I am not sure we can have values like yes and no for open searches etc .... As I see it, the tricky part of designing metadata is finding the right way to be consistent and still convey a useful message - very tricky. For example, we could define the term accessHazard as one only to be used where there has been evaluation of the resource - then we cut it down to two possibilities for flashing. Charles has argued that it is more likely to be correct if it is used to show there isn't a hazard than that there is. I am not sure of this (too old to think this one through) but I am concerned that if a new accessMedia is added, it might add a hazard to a resource that didn't have one. There is more thinking to do and I am happy to go with the flow on this.. Liddy On 02/10/2013, at 6:38 AM, Madeleine Rothberg wrote: > 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 Wednesday, 2 October 2013 00:25:28 UTC