JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for DC-ACCESSIBILITY Archives


DC-ACCESSIBILITY Archives

DC-ACCESSIBILITY Archives


DC-ACCESSIBILITY@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

DC-ACCESSIBILITY Home

DC-ACCESSIBILITY Home

DC-ACCESSIBILITY  February 2007

DC-ACCESSIBILITY February 2007

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Not accessible or not adaptable.

From:

lisa <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

DCMI Accessibility Community <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 8 Feb 2007 11:02:39 +0200

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (127 lines)

I do not think anyone care about the intent. The question is this known to
be inaccessible, or is it just a case of no one wrote the  meta data to say
it is accessible. 


all the best

lisa

-----Original Message-----
From: DCMI Accessibility Community [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Liddy Nevile
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:34 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Not accessible or not adaptable.

I think the answer to this is:

first, metadata does not usually contain information about the intention or
motivation for the property of the resource..
and
secondly, the values for the property allow you to say it is variable or not
variable, eg., but not how hard it is to re-code it - for sure
- sorry!

If you want to describe the resource as an example of bad encoding, that can
be done but not as a value for the font-flexibility property. That is
relevant to the subject or description properties, IMHO.

Liddy

On 08/02/2007, at 6:05 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:

>
> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:04:43 +0530, Liddy Nevile  
> <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
>> perhaps bear in mind, Charles, that we are not proposing a  
>> statement ofthe type "x is accessible" or otherwise...but rather,  
>> "X has variablefont size" or "X is not controllable by keystrokes  
>> alone"
>
> Sure. But even in that context, how do I say "X has fixed font-size  
> and I will
> do everything in my power to make sure X is an example of something  
> whose font-size
> cannot be varied, because I am deliberately trying to make it bad",  
> in a way
> that you can tell is different from "I don't know about the font- 
> size in X"?
>
> (In EARL you could just say that it fails a particular requirement,  
> but I am not
> sure how that fits in here).
>
>> Liddy
>>
>> On 08/02/2007, at 5:20 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 01:54:25 +0530, Liddy  
>>> Nevile<[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Emmanuelle
>>>> have you been able to read the metadata terms we are working on - 
>>>> theyreflect the specs in WCAG but in a metadata way and give  
>>>> muchmoreflexibility ... there is a fairly comprehensive set and  
>>>> they areaboutto become an ISO standard at least for education....
>>>>
>>>> The DC conformsTo etc simply did not give us enough  
>>>> usefulinformationabout the resource..so we have added a few  
>>>> qualifiers andone new term
>>>
>>> But the big question is whether you can state that something is  
>>> notaccessible (which
>>> is different from not stating that it is) - the use case is  
>>> forexamples that
>>> are showing how not to do things.
>>>
>>> There is an issue if we use monotonic logic (which underpins  
>>> thesemantic web, a
>>> lot of the assumptions behind Dublin Core, and so on).  
>>> Broadlyspeaking, a
>>> statement is expected to be true. If something is going to  
>>> changestate, that is
>>> problematic, but there are ways around it.
>>>
>>> The reason for EARL's complexity is to provide a reasonable way  
>>> ofmanaging both
>>> trust, and changes in actual status fo the thing under  
>>> discussion. If,instead
>>> of saying "foo is accessible" you say "fred says foo is  
>>> accessible"then you don't
>>> make RDF and other monotonic systems crash if you add a statement  
>>> "josays foo
>>> is not accessible". (RDF doesn't actually ahve a "not" but you  
>>> can useOWL to
>>> explain that passing "isAnInaccessibleExample" cannot happen  
>>> toanything that
>>> meets WCAG-A, for example. You can then  
>>> define"isAnInaccessibleExample" as test
>>> for EARL and make statements about it.
>>>
>>> As I understand it, you could then use that approach for DC  
>>> metadata.
>>>
>>> So, as far as I know, there is no direct way of saying something  
>>> isinaccessible,
>>> but it is easy enough to define a slightly indirect one.
>>>
>>> If anyone has a better approach I would love to hear it...
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> Chaals
>>>
>>> --Charles McCathieNevile Fundacion Sidar
>>> [log in to unmask] +61 409 134 136 http://www.sidar.org
>
>
>
> -- 
> Charles McCathieNevile Fundacion Sidar
> [log in to unmask] +61 409 134 136 http://www.sidar.org

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

June 2021
May 2021
March 2021
February 2021
September 2020
April 2020
November 2019
September 2019
February 2019
January 2019
May 2018
October 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
February 2017
June 2016
April 2016
December 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
April 2015
October 2014
September 2014
January 2014
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
April 2013
February 2013
August 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
October 2011
May 2011
March 2011
September 2010
November 2009
October 2009
April 2009
February 2009
November 2008
July 2008
May 2008
April 2008
September 2007
August 2007
June 2007
March 2007
February 2007
December 2006
October 2006
September 2006
June 2006
May 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
January 2005
December 2004
October 2004
September 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager