- From: Léonie Watson <lwatson@paciellogroup.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 14:00:01 +0100
- To: <chaals@yandex-team.ru>, "'WAI Interest Group'" <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> From: chaals@yandex-team.ru [mailto:chaals@yandex-team.ru] > Sent: 17 June 2015 22:54 > Hi folks, > > TL;DR: I am looking for opinions on how to identify resources so it is easier for > a given person to find content accessible to them. [...] > > The problem is we don't have a good mechanism for describing how you can > interact with a resource. Asking for content where the images have > descriptions is fine, but irrelevant where there are no images in the first > place. And asking developers to explicitly state all the cases that are > irrelevant to their content strikes me as unscalable (and not very bright in the > first place). > > My initial thinking is that we should describe "accessModes" for content, > such as "you need to be able to understand english-language text and to > hear, OR to be able to understand english language text and see, in order to > effectively use this site". (The underlying use case is a video which has both > audio descriptions, and captions, available as an option in the player, but > making these things up is easy and there are lots of variations). [...] > > Two arguments have been raised against this approach. > > The first is that it is enforcing a "medical model" of disability, rather than > allowing people to state their own preferences and needs. As far as I can see > this logic is false. The model here allows people to state, in as much or little > detail as they want for a given situation, what capabilities they have, and > enables search systems to match resources against the particular capabilities > or preferences of a particular individual in real time. At the risk of re-opening an old debate, I don't think the disability model is relevant in this context. Whether disability is regarded as a medical problem to solve, or a social attitude that needs to change, it doesn't alter the fact that I can't see. If anything, this proposal feels like a pragmatic model of disability. The ability to indicate the things I can (or perhaps can't) do, in order to find content that I can use successfully, is about getting on with life in a practical way. I waste a horrendous amount of time trying to find content I can use. I'll usually be able to find umpteen sources of the information I'm looking for, but only the 10th will be in a format I can make use of. If we can find a way to match someone's requirements with the accessibility characteristics of a resource, I think it will make life a lot easier for a great many people. Returning to the idea itself, I imagine it would be necessary to come up with a common vocabulary of access modes. An immediate thought is that a flat vocabulary wouldn't work - on the basis that disability isn't a binary state. Is a hierarchical taxonomy possible within Schema? Léonie. -- Léonie Watson - Senior accessibility engineer @LeonieWatson @PacielloGroup PacielloGroup.com
Received on Thursday, 18 June 2015 13:00:34 UTC