RE: Schema.org - identifying accessible documents

I think this depends on the degree of transparency and bi-directional communication. If I create an inaccessible resource (or don't bother to label an accessible one), under the right conditions potential users can set me straight, in public. Highly visible aggregated demand for accessibility features can be powerful! The right schema, built into the right tools and disseminated widely, is an almost automatic advocacy multiplier.

***
Jim Tobias
Inclusive Technologies
+1.908.907.2387 v/sms
skype jimtobias
  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jutta Treviranus [mailto:jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca]
> Sent: Thursday, June 18, 2015 9:55 AM
> To: lwatson@paciellogroup.com; WAI Interest Group
> Cc: chaals@yandex-team.ru
> Subject: Re: Schema.org - identifying accessible documents
> 
> Hi Léonie and Charles,
> 
> On a practical level, we should also consider the real world scenarios in which this markup will be used. If I happen to be an
> author who has created content that is inaccessible to certain groups, what is the likelihood that I will take the time to label
> my resource as requiring a specific skill? More importantly, if I do label the resource as requiring a capability, will I consider
> this as sufficient to warn off anyone without sight so I do not need to make further efforts to make it accessible?
> 
> Jutta
> 
> > On Jun 18, 2015, at 9:00 AM, Léonie Watson <lwatson@paciellogroup.com> wrote:
> >
> >> 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 15:17:43 UTC