Re: accessibility proposal Review...

I am just trying to understand the difference between text for reading  
- that can be rendered in lots of ways, say, and text on an image that  
can be 'read' but not rendered ... etc.


On 08/09/2013, at 10:40 PM, Karen Coyle wrote:

> On 9/8/13 7:49 AM, Liddy Nevile wrote:
>> One of the problems that has arisen is that we have not managed the
>> requirement of 'reading' in previous work. That one has to see text  
>> is a
>> different thing from it being necessary for it to be read. So I  
>> want to
>> know how we should make it clear that 'reading is required'.
> Liddy, I'm not sure that this is the place to bring in literacy and  
> levels of literacy. After all, if there is sound, but it is sound in  
> a language I do not understand, then "hearing" is not the whole  
> requirement.
> The education community deals some with the idea of reading / 
> understanding levels -- obviously, you don't want to give an 8-year- 
> old a college-level calculus text. For accessibility, I hope that  
> designating "text" or "sound" will be sufficient, and that most data  
> will have elsewhere information about what language(s) are available  
> and perhaps the required or preferred reading level of the user.
> kc
>> Also, what does it mean to have an 'allText' version as one of the
>> available minimal sets.
>> I think that there are lots of versions available is interesting to
>> users (ie so they know it will be multimedia and, therefore by defn,
>> interesting :-)) but it is also important to know that there is a
>> version that requires only vision and reading, esp for those with
>> hearing limitations, or only vision and hearing for those who can't
>> read, etc.
>> Also, I acknowledge that we have confused the logic a bit by having  
>> too
>> much in accessMode. This is internal conflict, I think.
>> I am now working on the idea of having seeing, hearing, touching, and
>> reading as the base senses and then building a taxonomy by working in
>> refinements of these so we can get to the detail that some might  
>> want.
>> In fact, I think they should be able to specify more refinements  
>> (in the
>> ISO case add them to the registry, perhaps) but that when a specific,
>> detailed term is used, we will need to know how to work back up the
>> taxonomy  to whatever is available eg if I have a requirement for
>> fontsize 10 of MS Comic in yellow on blue, at least a system will  
>> know
>> my requirements are related to seeing...
>> I am not sure there is an easy way to specify all the permutations  
>> and
>> combinations of minimal sets of accessModes for a resource even if  
>> that
>> is a repeatable term.
>> I find it hard to accept that in all cases the 'original' exists or
>> makes sense so the solution of using accessMode and accessFeature (or
>> mediaFeature) does not work well for me.
>> Finally, there is the idea that the concepts we use for describing
>> people's needs should be the same as we use for characteristics of  
>> the
>> resource/service. I have tried to work with this but perhaps it is  
>> not
>> the best way to go?
>> Liddy
> -- 
> Karen Coyle
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet

Received on Sunday, 8 September 2013 13:13:59 UTC