Re: Schema.org accessibility proposal Review...

On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 02:48:41 -0000, Charles Myers <charlesm@benetech.org>  
wrote:

> And a few replies back.

And back again :)

> See responses with "CRM:". And if it seems that I'm being defensive, I  
> assure you that I'm not.

No, I understand.

> ... Let's keep the focus on the mission of making accessible content  
> discoverable.

Yes.

> From: Charles McCathie Nevile <chaals@yandex-team.ru>

> Some very quick replies...
>
> On Fri, 06 Sep 2013 00:26:17 +0100, Jason Johnson (BING)
> <jasjoh@microsoft.com> wrote:
>
>> Adding Ian Niles from the Microsoft Bing team and sharing his feedback.
>>
>> 1.        I'm not sure we need both properties hasAdaptation and
>> isAdaptationOf (each is just an inverse of the other).
>
> Yeah, that's my position too.
>
> CRM: While these are mirror images, they have very different uses.

Yes, but I think we only need the simplest possible approach. For anything  
more powerful, people should use a "proper vocabulary" that covers more  
than our simplifying assumptions.

I don't mean this to be disparaging. But I think all relationships beyond  
"this is a version of that" are a field where others do good work, and we  
should defer to them as needed.

>> 2.       ATCompatible is defined as a Boolean property.  It would be
>> more informative if it were defined as a property with an enumeration of
>> values relating to WCAG 2.0 checkpoints or to some other means of
>> qualifying the nature of the compatibility with assistive technologies.
>
> Agree. And I think that is what Rich said the idea is meant to be
> (although having the value as a boolean loses that).
>
> CRM:Yes, it might be informative to have all of this information  
> detailed for search.  But would a person searching for content on the  
> web look checkboxes that looked like (imagine the * as a checkbox)?
> * WCAG 2.0/1.1.1
> * WCAG 2.0/1.3.1
> * WCAG 2.0/1.3.2
> ...
> I think not.

Agreed.

> A person looking for accessible content would most like to know if the  
> creator asserts that they have made this content so that it is intended  
> to work with screen readers and other accessibility technology.

I believe it aint necessarily so. A person looking for content to use  
themselves is likely to be interested in whether it works with the  
assistive technology they require, but fairly uninterested in all the work  
that has been done for all other kinds of assistive technology.

A teacher, employer, or similar person selecting content on behalf of a  
large group is likely to want some general assurance that a work has been  
thoughtfully developed.

> The content of the web page can always give more detail of what is
> supported or not. Also, if we make the burden of telling all of this
> information too severe, we're likely to not get anything.

True, but if we enable people to get discovered for all the work they have  
done, it is pretty clearly in their interest to identify who can benefit  
 from their work.

In this case, I think we're in the latter situation. But as noted earlier,  
I don't think this is the first priority...

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathie Nevile - Consultant (web standards) CTO Office, Yandex
       chaals@yandex-team.ru         Find more at http://yandex.com

Received on Saturday, 7 September 2013 12:15:29 UTC