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
>
|