accessibilityFeature none
16 views
Skip to first unread message
Matt Garrish
Mar 1, 2014, 10:14:21 AM3/1/14
to a11y-metad...@googlegroups.com
One question that’s been raised in the edupub work, where we’re looking at
integrating the metadata, is how to make a statement either that no
accessibility features are included, or that the publisher wants to explicitly
disclaim that, while some may be present, they are not making any claims about
the suitability of the content (whether for legal reasons or otherwise).
Omitting the property might indicate no accessibility feature, but it might
also mean that the book was not checked.
In that light, should we have (or tacitly allow) none/notVerified values
for this purpose?
Part of the rationale for such values is also that it would allow us to
require accessibilityFeaure appear in all edupub-compliant epubs, as they
address the implied cases of no properties being set.
I’m not sure where I stand on this yet, so thoughts welcome.
Matt
Gerardo Capiel
Mar 1, 2014, 10:19:59 AM3/1/14
to Matt Garrish, <a11y-metadata-project@googlegroups.com>
Yeah, this is similar to the alt=''. Did they forget to put a value or are they saying it's not needed? So, I think similar to how a role property with a value was created. I think it makes sense to use the existing accessibilityFeature property with a value
of none. We should decided quickly as some publishers will soon be inputing properties into the Learning Registry and I want to provide an updated best practices guide.
Gerardo
Gerardo Capiel
VP of Engineering
benetech
650-644-3405 - Twitter: @gcapiel - GPG: 0x859F11C4
Fork, Code, Do Social Good: http://benetech.github.com/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Accessibility Metadata Project" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to a11y-metadata-pr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to a11y-metad...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Matt Garrish
Mar 1, 2014, 10:26:36 AM3/1/14
to Gerardo Capiel, a11y-metad...@googlegroups.com
Right, and maybe we only need "none". The cases -- knowing your content is
inaccessible, not checking, or not wanting to say -- all boil down to saying
no features are known to be present.
I don't see how you could get in trouble for your content being more
accessible than you've indicated, at any rate.
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerardo Capiel
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 10:19 AM
To: Matt Garrish
Cc: <a11y-metad...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [a11y-metadata-project] accessibilityFeature none
Yeah, this is similar to the alt=''. Did they forget to put a value or are
they saying it's not needed? So, I think similar to how a role property
with a value was created. I think it makes sense to use the existing
accessibilityFeature property with a value of none. We should decided
quickly as some publishers will soon be inputing properties into the
Learning Registry and I want to provide an updated best practices guide.
Gerardo
Gerardo Capiel
VP of Engineering
benetech
650-644-3405 - Twitter: @gcapiel<http://twitter.com/gcapiel> - GPG:
inaccessible, not checking, or not wanting to say -- all boil down to saying
no features are known to be present.
I don't see how you could get in trouble for your content being more
accessible than you've indicated, at any rate.
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerardo Capiel
Sent: Saturday, March 01, 2014 10:19 AM
To: Matt Garrish
Cc: <a11y-metad...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [a11y-metadata-project] accessibilityFeature none
Yeah, this is similar to the alt=''. Did they forget to put a value or are
they saying it's not needed? So, I think similar to how a role property
with a value was created. I think it makes sense to use the existing
accessibilityFeature property with a value of none. We should decided
quickly as some publishers will soon be inputing properties into the
Learning Registry and I want to provide an updated best practices guide.
Gerardo
Gerardo Capiel
VP of Engineering
benetech
0x859F11C4
Fork, Code, Do Social Good: http://benetech.github.com/
On Mar 1, 2014, at 7:14 AM, Matt Garrish
<matt.g...@bell.net<mailto:matt.g...@bell.net>>
Fork, Code, Do Social Good: http://benetech.github.com/
On Mar 1, 2014, at 7:14 AM, Matt Garrish
wrote:
One question that’s been raised in the edupub work, where we’re looking at
integrating the metadata, is how to make a statement either that no
accessibility features are included, or that the publisher wants to
explicitly disclaim that, while some may be present, they are not making any
claims about the suitability of the content (whether for legal reasons or
otherwise).
Omitting the property might indicate no accessibility feature, but it might
also mean that the book was not checked.
In that light, should we have (or tacitly allow) none/notVerified values for
this purpose?
Part of the rationale for such values is also that it would allow us to
require accessibilityFeaure appear in all edupub-compliant epubs, as they
address the implied cases of no properties being set.
I’m not sure where I stand on this yet, so thoughts welcome.
Matt
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Accessibility Metadata Project" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to
a11y-metadata-pr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:a11y-metadata-pr...@googlegroups.com>.
One question that’s been raised in the edupub work, where we’re looking at
integrating the metadata, is how to make a statement either that no
accessibility features are included, or that the publisher wants to
explicitly disclaim that, while some may be present, they are not making any
claims about the suitability of the content (whether for legal reasons or
otherwise).
Omitting the property might indicate no accessibility feature, but it might
also mean that the book was not checked.
In that light, should we have (or tacitly allow) none/notVerified values for
this purpose?
Part of the rationale for such values is also that it would allow us to
require accessibilityFeaure appear in all edupub-compliant epubs, as they
address the implied cases of no properties being set.
I’m not sure where I stand on this yet, so thoughts welcome.
Matt
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Accessibility Metadata Project" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to
To post to this group, send email to
a11y-metad...@googlegroups.com<mailto:a11y-metad...@googlegroups.com>.
Madeleine Rothberg
Mar 1, 2014, 6:29:48 PM3/1/14
to Matt Garrish, Gerardo Capiel, a11y-metad...@googlegroups.com
I agree that an approach parallel to alt="" makes sense. I hope publishers
won't fill in "none" if they could point out a positive feature --
structured navigation at the least! But I like that it makes it
technically possible to make the property mandatory, if that is
politically likely.
-Madeleine
>oject+un...@googlegroups.com>.
won't fill in "none" if they could point out a positive feature --
structured navigation at the least! But I like that it makes it
technically possible to make the property mandatory, if that is
politically likely.
-Madeleine
>To post to this group, send email to
>a11y-metad...@googlegroups.com<mailto:a11y-metadata-project@google
>--
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Accessibility Metadata Project" group.
>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>email to a11y-metadata-pr...@googlegroups.com.
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>"Accessibility Metadata Project" group.
>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>To post to this group, send email to
>a11y-metad...@googlegroups.com.
Gerardo Capiel
Mar 4, 2014, 1:57:31 PM3/4/14
to Matt Garrish, a11y-metad...@googlegroups.com, Madeleine Rothberg
Matt,
Unless someone disagrees within the next 48 hours, I'd like to propose that we move forward on the "none" and "describedMath" values for accessibilityFeature.
With regards to describedMath, I recently learned from another provider of accessibility services and tools to publishers that some publishers are already producing content/eBooks with plain text alt descriptions of mathematical images due to the lack
of MathML support in reading systems. For publishers that also embed the source MathML or a link to the source MathML, they can include both "MathML" and "describedMath" accessibilityFeature values.
Thank You,
Gerardo
Gerardo Capiel
VP of Engineering
benetech
650-644-3405 - Twitter: @gcapiel - GPG: 0x859F11C4
Fork, Code, Do Social Good: http://benetech.github.com/
Matt Garrish
Mar 12, 2014, 3:11:08 PM3/12/14
to Gerardo Capiel, a11y-metad...@googlegroups.com, Madeleine Rothberg
Catching back up on email, as no one has objected and we're well past the
review period, the new values have been added to the a11y site and the w3
wiki.
Now on to proposing to edupub folks that we require accessibilityFeature...
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerardo Capiel [mailto:gera...@benetech.org]
Sent: March-04-14 13:58
To: Matt Garrish; a11y-metad...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Madeleine Rothberg
Subject: last call on new values for accessibilityFeature
Matt,
Unless someone disagrees within the next 48 hours, I'd like to propose that
we move forward on the "none" and "describedMath" values for
accessibilityFeature.
With regards to describedMath, I recently learned from another provider of
accessibility services and tools to publishers that some publishers are
already producing content/eBooks with plain text alt descriptions of
mathematical images due to the lack of MathML support in reading systems.
For publishers that also embed the source MathML or a link to the source
MathML, they can include both "MathML" and "describedMath"
accessibilityFeature values.
Thank You,
Gerardo
Gerardo Capiel
VP of Engineering
benetech
<matt.g...@bell.net<mailto:matt.g...@bell.net><mailto:matt.garrish@bel
ect+uns...@googlegroups.com><mailto:a11y-metadata-pr
oject+un...@googlegroups.com<mailto:oject+un...@googlegroups.com
groups.com<http://groups.com>>.
ect+uns...@googlegroups.com>.
ect+uns...@googlegroups.com>.
review period, the new values have been added to the a11y site and the w3
wiki.
Now on to proposing to edupub folks that we require accessibilityFeature...
Matt
-----Original Message-----
From: Gerardo Capiel [mailto:gera...@benetech.org]
Sent: March-04-14 13:58
To: Matt Garrish; a11y-metad...@googlegroups.com
Cc: Madeleine Rothberg
Subject: last call on new values for accessibilityFeature
Matt,
Unless someone disagrees within the next 48 hours, I'd like to propose that
we move forward on the "none" and "describedMath" values for
accessibilityFeature.
With regards to describedMath, I recently learned from another provider of
accessibility services and tools to publishers that some publishers are
already producing content/eBooks with plain text alt descriptions of
mathematical images due to the lack of MathML support in reading systems.
For publishers that also embed the source MathML or a link to the source
MathML, they can include both "MathML" and "describedMath"
accessibilityFeature values.
Thank You,
Gerardo
Gerardo Capiel
VP of Engineering
benetech
650-644-3405 - Twitter: @gcapiel<http://twitter.com/gcapiel> - GPG:
0x859F11C4
Fork, Code, Do Social Good: http://benetech.github.com/
0x859F11C4
Fork, Code, Do Social Good: http://benetech.github.com/
On Mar 1, 2014, at 3:29 PM, Madeleine Rothberg
<madeleine...@wgbh.org<mailto:madeleine...@wgbh.org>>
wrote:
I agree that an approach parallel to alt="" makes sense. I hope publishers
won't fill in "none" if they could point out a positive feature --
structured navigation at the least! But I like that it makes it
technically possible to make the property mandatory, if that is
politically likely.
-Madeleine
On 3/1/14 10:26 AM, "Matt Garrish"
I agree that an approach parallel to alt="" makes sense. I hope publishers
won't fill in "none" if they could point out a positive feature --
structured navigation at the least! But I like that it makes it
technically possible to make the property mandatory, if that is
politically likely.
-Madeleine
On 3/1/14 10:26 AM, "Matt Garrish"
oject+un...@googlegroups.com<mailto:oject+un...@googlegroups.com
>>.
To post to this group, send email to
a11y-metad...@googlegroups.com<mailto:a11y-metadata-project@googlegr
oups.com><mailto:a11y-metadata-project@google
To post to this group, send email to
a11y-metad...@googlegroups.com<mailto:a11y-metadata-project@googlegr
groups.com<http://groups.com>>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Accessibility Metadata Project" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to
a11y-metadata-pr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:a11y-metadata-proj
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Accessibility Metadata Project" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to
ect+uns...@googlegroups.com>.
To post to this group, send email to
a11y-metad...@googlegroups.com<mailto:a11y-metadata-project@googlegr
oups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Accessibility Metadata Project" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to
a11y-metadata-pr...@googlegroups.com<mailto:a11y-metadata-proj
a11y-metad...@googlegroups.com<mailto:a11y-metadata-project@googlegr
oups.com>.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Accessibility Metadata Project" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to
ect+uns...@googlegroups.com>.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages