Notes from 10/7 accessibility metadata conference call, preparation for 10/8 9;00 AM PDT call

[Charles Myers]

The accessibility metadata group met yesterday. A few things took place
that are worth reviewing before our call on 10/8:

1) We decided that accessHazard should have both positive and negative
assertions of the hazards. This change has been made in the spec and in
the issue tracker
http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility/Issues_Tracker#accessHazard_-_Ok_as_is.2C_or_should_it_be_negated_in_sense_or_allow_a_.22none.22.3F

2) We had a long discussion on the utility and complexity of
mediaFeature, as we'd like to pin down one part of the accessMode,
mediaFeature, is/hasAdaptation set of concepts. To make this discussion
simpler, I have rewritten (just a proposal) the mediafeatures into the
four sensory modes (visual, auditory, tactile, textual) and two types
(transform and content). With this more finely grained structure, it
should be easier to have a discussion on these features.
See
http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility/Issues_Tracker#What_is_the_goal_of_mediaFeature.3F_.28conforming_or_informational.29_Do_we_have_this_right.3F
and the table near the bottom of that item.

Let's be ready to discuss #2 in more detail, and then moving to
something closely aligned to mediaFeatures, which is the accessAPI and
controlFlexibility for applications. This is #10 on the list
http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/Accessibility/Issues_Tracker#softwareApplication_properties:_accessAPI_and_controlFlexibility.2C_ok_or_not.3F