- From: Liddy Nevile <liddy@sunriseresearch.org>
- Date: Sun, 8 Sep 2013 23:51:35 +1000
- To: kcoyle@kcoyle.net
- Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org
Karen, for ever we have had this problem that dc:type and dc:format have to be used together for accessibility - so we know the problem and hopefully will sort it ! Liddy On 08/09/2013, at 11:43 PM, Karen Coyle wrote: > 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 13:52:06 UTC