For some reason my posting of this message was rejected - excuse me  
if you have received it twice...as the 'machine' suggests is the case  
- see below :-)

I think the discussion about terms has been a useful airing of  
possibilities and am inclined to conclude that we should make no  
change. We will continue to develop an accessibility application  
profile module for use with other metadata, that uses, as much as  
possible, existing DCMI terms.

Liddy



Begin forwarded message:

> From: "JISCMAIL LISTSERV Server (14.5)" <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 19 December 2006 8:33:35 AM
> To: Liddy Nevile <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Rejected posting to [log in to unmask]
>
> Your message  is being returned to  you unprocessed because it   
> appears to have
> already been distributed to the DC-ACCESSIBILITY  list. That is, a  
> message with
> identical text  (but possibly with different  mail headers) has  
> been  posted to
> the list  recently, either by  you or  by someone else.  If you  
> have  reason to
> resend this message to the list (for instance because you have been  
> notified of
> a hardware failure with loss of data),  please alter the text of  
> the message in
> some way and resend  it to the list. Note that altering  the  
> "Subject:" line or
> adding blank lines at  the top or bottom of the message  is not  
> sufficient; you
> should  instead add  a  sentence or  two  at  the top  explaining   
> why you  are
> resending the  message, so that the  other subscribers understand  
> why  they are
> getting two copies of the same message.
>
> From: Liddy Nevile <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 19 December 2006 6:47:32 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: a cat for the pigeons?
> Reply-To: DCMI Accessibility Community <DC- 
> [log in to unmask]>
>
>
> I think the discussion about terms has been a useful airing of  
> possibilities and am inclined to conclude that we should make no  
> change. We will continue to develop an accessibility application  
> profile module for use with other metadata, that uses, as much as  
> possible, existing DCMI terms.
>
> Liddy
>
>
> On 18/12/2006, at 11:10 PM, Paul Walsh, Segala wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Liddy,
>>
>> Perhaps I don't qualify to ask the question as an observer, but  
>> what's wrong
>> with the term accessibility?
>>
>> Thanks
>> Paul
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: DCMI Accessibility Community [mailto:DC- 
>> [log in to unmask]]
>> On Behalf Of Liddy Nevile
>> Sent: 14 December 2006 11:07
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: a cat for the pigeons?
>>
>> We have talked a lot about the extra term we need for accessability
>> and other adaptability issues. Someone recently suggested that the
>> qualities we are describing using the new term are to do with
>> communication and comprehension and so we could think of a term label
>> such as 'communicability' instead of adaptability. They were thinking
>> of the term being used in a range of contexts, as indeed we were too,
>> and pointed out that the purpose of the adaptation is to increase
>> communication...and that that applies equally when you are asking if
>> the content works on a phone screen as it does when you ask if it can
>> be used by someone with a screen reader ...
>>
>> I would like to know what people think about that?
>>
>> Liddy
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.15.18/586 - Release Date:  
>> 13/12/2006
>> 18:13
>>
>
>
>
>