- From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
- Date: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 14:43:11 +0100
- To: Liddy Nevile <liddy@sunriseresearch.org>
- CC: public-vocabs@w3.org
Liddy, Now I see what you mean. And it is very complex. Are a printed page, a photo of a page, a gif with some letters, and digital document all text? The Dublin Core type vocabulary says: "Text: Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text." But I think is is assuming that the user is sighted. There are many gradations, both of text and of sightedness -- with a magnifying glass some VIPs (visually impaired persons) can read non-digital text, but if it is unclear, or on a medium that does not fit with their reading device... I think it may be necessary to have "visually accessible text" vs. "machine-interpretable text". I can't imagine how you would fill in all of the variations. Good luck! :-) kc On 9/8/13 2:13 PM, Liddy Nevile wrote: > Karen > 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. > > Liddy > > 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 >> kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net >> ph: 1-510-540-7596 >> m: 1-510-435-8234 >> skype: kcoylenet >> > > -- Karen Coyle kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net ph: 1-510-540-7596 m: 1-510-435-8234 skype: kcoylenet
Received on Sunday, 8 September 2013 13:43:48 UTC