Re: Schema.org - identifying accessible documents

Some thoughts looking at the common ground - and collating ideas for how we can address both the need for standard language — and open language. 


FIRST 

There sometimes seems to be a debate between:

A) we NEED standards, or things don’t interoperate
B) we NEED some way for people (consumers, industry) to talk/express needs & preferences   - in their own language/words/terms  when they don’t “speak”/understand standard language/terms.

I agree with BOTH,  and think both are critically important.   (…that it is not an either/or situation) 


SOLUTION IN FRONT OF US?
And I think a potential solution to both issues is the following (which is basically what we are very close to doing if we pull all the bits we are doing together in a coordinated way) :

1) create/maintain/continue to support standardized metadata terms that can be used in formal coding and retrieval systems.  (we already have - Dublin Core et al to address this.) 

2) create a registry (I think we should call it a THESAURUS) of IDEA/CONCEPTS that can be used or combined to express needs and preferences etc.   (the new part 2 of ISO 24751)
we put into this registry/THESAURUS every different concept that can be used or combined to express needs/preferences/features/affordances  for accessibility/usability
we put into this registry/THESAURUS every different word/term/characterString (in any language) that can be used to express one of these concepts 
where (words/terms/characterStrings) have the same meaning (are synonyms), we link them together (call them aliases) 
where they have the same meaning but have different transformable value spaces, link them as "Transform aliases" 

3) then let the systems use standard terms/ formats on a machine level — but let people (consumers, developers, manufacturers, family members, practicioners) use whatever terms they are used to, in whatever language they understand, to express needs and preferences — and have the THESAURUS provide the ability to translate between the two when people can’t / don’t use the standard terms.     


Would this address both needs  (A & B)?

Would this be a more realistic way for creating systems that work for machines, but that will also be usable by the vast majority of human being who will not learn (and many could not understand) standardized metadata terminally and proper usage. 

Is this not what we have been heading toward  
with the new “registry (thesaurus)” approach to 24751 part 2 ...
working together with existing metadata standards and systems/registries.  (Dublin Core et al,  Schema.org <http://schema.org/>, etc)
?


Thoughts?

gregg

----------------------------------
Gregg Vanderheiden
gregg@raisingthefloor.org




> On Jun 21, 2015, at 3:14 PM, Jutta Treviranus <jutta.trevira@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Léonie,
> Thanks for these thoughtful notes.
> My comments inline.
> 
> Jutta
> 
> 
>> On Jun 20, 2015, at 7:19 PM, Léonie Watson <lwatson@paciellogroup.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> From: Jutta Treviranus [mailto:jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca]
>>> Sent: 18 June 2015 14:38
>>> 
>>> As to the specific example of markup you have asked us to consider:
>>>> "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).
> 
>> Léonie wrote:
>> There is usually a way to make things up where metadata is concerned. There is often a fair amount of flexibility in the way metadata is interpreted, and history tells us this has happened already. 
>> 
>> Is there something in this proposal that makes it more prone to mis-use do you think?
> 
> Jutta’s response:
> Yes, please see my second note. This is proposing that you label a resource with the capabilities you need to use the resource, to in a sense warn off anyone that doesn’t have those capabilities. As I mentioned, if you are someone that is creating resources that are not accessible then you are probably less likely to take the time to add metadata regarding the capabilities required. Worse yet, you may think you have done everything you need to do to address accessibility by warning away people that can’t use the resource. 
> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> What does your description add that simply stating that this resource or
>>> document "has captions," "has descriptions", and that the language "is
>>> english" doesn’t achieve? In fact your description is much more complex and
>>> also confusing because you would not need to be able to understand english
>>> language text if you can hear, you could listen to the speech audio and
>>> understand spoken english.  (I have left your message below my reply in its
>>> entirety for easier reference.)
>> 
>> Léonie wrote:
>> If a resource had no specific accessibility feature, yet was nonetheless accessible to someone, how would it be classified? As Chaals notes, a search for a resource with text descriptions for images would exclude any resource that consisted only of text, yet such resources would likely be accessible to a person requiring text descriptions for images.
> Jutta’s response:
> That is already covered by identifying that it is text.  You do not need any further identification unless there are images as well. 
> 
>> [...]
>> 
>>> 
>>> On a general level, the debate boils down to who gets to come up with the
>>> labels and the categories that describe individual needs and preferences: is it
>>> collectively the individuals who are experiencing the barriers to access or is it
>>> the developers and the arbitrary group of individuals that happen to be part
>>> of the standards working groups, many of whom know nothing about the
>>> barriers.  
>> 
>> [...]
>> Léonie wrote:
>> Speaking as someone involved in the standards effort, and someone (like many others) who has a disability, this feels like a very binary assessment to me.
>> 
>> The two communities can (and sometimes do) collaborate. User research is another way the standards community can seek input from different disability communities, and open reviews of proposed ideas (like this thread) are yet another way to bring people from outside the standards effort into the conversation.
>> 
>> Of course these things aren't perfect solutions, but few things are. If we start from an "either or" position, I suspect we'll set ourselves up for failure before we start though.
> 
> Jutta’s response:
> I agree completely, we want collaboration. Unfortunately the situation at the moment, in the ISO context, does not provide the opportunity for any collaboration or input by individuals with disabilities. In fact there has been vociferous objections to requiring that the process be accessible, thereby ensuring that anyone that finds their way through the process will face accessibility barriers.
>> 
>>> 
>>> Lastly, if we include the ISO discussions, I think the argument is also about
>>> how we approach this important challenge: can we make this an exercise
>>> about what emerging technical capabilities we can use to match and address
>>> the individual needs and preferences of real people who face barriers on real
>>> people’s terms (and thereby potentially advance the process of
>>> individualized customization or personalization for all people), or is this an
>>> exercise in the concessions that can be made by metadata authors in
>>> labelling documents or resources for people who are "not capable" of using
>>> the resources?
>> 
>> Léonie wrote:
>> The notion of "real people" makes me smile, but I take your meaning.
> 
> Jutta’s response:
> I was borrowing Charles’ term “real people” from his post, and putting a slightly different spin to it. There is opposition to processes that allow more open input, the justification is that it is not practical and does not adequately address “real” scenarios. 
>> 
>> The proposal seems to be about making it possible to search for resources that a person with a disability can use. It feels like something of a jump to go from there to "personalisation and customisation", not least because storing and maintaining a profile starts privacy alarm bells ringing in the back of my head. That's probably a conversation for another time and place though.
> 
> Jutta’s response:
> 
> Yes, this is a much larger discussion and privacy is a major priority. There are no "personal profiles" but "personal preference files" that you can invoke in different contexts (e.g., when it is dark, when I’m tired, when I’m taking care of my son), that are independent of your identity. You can refine these as you gain a better understanding of what works for you in what context. This is supported by a growing series of discovery and exploration utilities. 
> 
> The overall direction proposed to support more open and collaborative input is a "concept registry" that can be used to negotiate common understandings of an extensible and expanding set of needs and preferences. The proposal is that anyone can participate in registering a concept (not just ISO member country representatives and official liaison). The common understanding of these concepts, developed through the registry, could then be codified and formalized through mechanisms like metadata, portable settings and other strategies. 
> 
> I hope this clarifies.
> 
> Jutta
> 
>> 
>> To the question of mis-use, I'm still struggling to understand how this proposal is any more open to abuse than any other metadata model (Schema or otherwise)?
>> 
>> Léonie.
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
>