OASIS Open Document Format for Office Applications (OpenDocument) TC

 View Only

Re: [office] accessibility caption proposal comments

  • 1.  Re: [office] accessibility caption proposal comments

    Posted 06-05-2006 20:45
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    office message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


    Subject: Re: [office] accessibility caption proposal comments


    On 05/06/06, Bruce D'Arcus <bruce.darcus@opendocument.us> wrote:
    
    > A "describedBy" attribute is exactly the sort of ground that we intend
    > to cover with metadata. It associates an object with a metadata
    > description. In this case, that description is just plain text, but in
    > other cases, it could be full metadata records (identified by uri). In
    > fact, one of our use cases involves automatically generating caption
    > from embedded (probably RDF) metadata descriptions.
    If we can leave aside the format of the description I can see a shared
    need here. We need to describe the image for a blind or partially
    sighted user, you for other reasons.
    
    I like the idea of markup within a description.
    Sufficient to allow a full description, rather than a brief caption?
    E.g. could you describe the Mona Lisa in one sentance...
    No don't answer that Bruce :-)
    
    
    >
    > <http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/Intellectual_Property>
    >
    > >> My suggestion would instead be to use natural containment, and to add
    
    
    > > How do you see one as better than the other?
    >
    > OK, let's break apart two separate issues: association and semantics.
    >
    > On the second, my contention is that "caption" is an important semantic
    > structure, and so deserves its own element. To say something is
    > "describedBy" is -- per above -- rather vague.
    I'm sure we could argue that either way.
    Caption has fairly clear semantics to me, but my gut
    reaction is that it's a brief, rather than full description?
    
    
    
    So notwithstanding the
    > question of how this lines up with a broader metadata effort, I think
    > we need a standard way to say what kind of description it is.
    I'll ride with that quite happily.
    
    
    
    
    > WRT to association, I think if we start down the path of using linking
    > to associate content with description, things could get really messy.
    > It's really a different design approach.
    >
    > For example, I mentioned that I didn't like the way sectioning
    > currently works. Ideally, we'd have proper sectional structures a la:
    >
    > <section>
    >    <p>...</p>
    > </section>
    >
    > The standard way to include heading information for those is
    > containment; e.g. in XHTML 2.0,
    
    I'm convinced. Equally I'm pretty convinced that a flat structure
    (minimal or no nesting unless explicitly generated) should
    be supported.
    
    
    
    > Aside: the above could benefit accessibility, yes?
    Yes.
    
    
    >
    > If we ARE going to go down the road of using attributes to make this
    > association, then I think:
    >
    > a) we need to give it much more thought so that we adopt a consistent
    > approach to these problems
    > b) it needs to happen in conjunction with the metadata effort
    
    No real arguments.
    
    I'm willing to support a nested  text equivalent to an image
    or drawing. Naming to be agreed on.
    Not sure I'd support RDF to mark up such a description.
    Simple inlines and some block (probably basic para class of markup)
    would seem natural to me?
    
    
    regards
    
    
    
    
    -- 
    Dave Pawson
    XSLT XSL-FO FAQ.
    http://www.dpawson.co.uk
    


    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]