Based on content type, it is possible to facilitate the authoring of metadata by automatically generating values based on what is known about the content's context and content type.
Table: Metadata by Content Type
This table attempts to organize the Access for All metadata according to content type - the idea is that certain types of content only require certain metadata.
Example 1: metadata for a video file will likely have Auditory and Visual metadata specified.
Example 2: metadata for an audio file will not require visual metadata - thus those metadata fields can be hidden from the user.
Thus it is possible to:
- Only show metadata fields that are required by certain media type and hide unnecessary metadata fields.
- Provide sensible defaults based on content type.
Content Type | Auditory | Tactile | Textual | Visual | Color | Chart on Visual | Diagram on Visual | Math on Visual | Music on Visual | Text on Visual | Alt Text | Captions | Transcript | Flashing Hazard | No Flashing Hazard | Motion Simulation Hazard | No Motion Simulation Hazard | Sound Hazard | No Sound Hazard |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Music / Dialog | |||||||||||||||||||
Video | |||||||||||||||||||
Captions | ? | ||||||||||||||||||
Image: diagram | |||||||||||||||||||
Image: text | |||||||||||||||||||
Image: math | |||||||||||||||||||
Image: chart | |||||||||||||||||||
ChemML | ? | ||||||||||||||||||
MathML | ? | ||||||||||||||||||
Sign Language | |||||||||||||||||||
Braille | |||||||||||||||||||
Transcript (text) | |||||||||||||||||||
Long Description (text) | ? | ||||||||||||||||||
Audio Description |
Automatically generate this default value. (i.e. if music, automatically specify hasAuditory)
grey = option is not presented to end user (i.e. don't show it if it isn't needed).
white = available option to end user.
= available option to end user which we recommend they specify (i.e. if the content is an image, we recommend alt text).
? = Unsure if this should be an automatically generated default value.
Modalities and their alternatives
Modality | Alternative |
---|---|
Auditory |
|
Visual |
|
Tactile |
|
Textual |
|
Question for Inclusion: "Is a particular modality critical to understanding the content?"
- If YES, then consider an alternative
- If NO, then everything is fine - alternatives are not needed.
This brings up a notion of "primary" and "secondary" modalities
- are we primarily concerned with "primary" modalities, and not "secondary"?
- primary modalities can be determined by asking the author which modalities are important to consuming the content
- Conclusion: There is no need to distinguish between "primary" and "secondary" modalities.
- Reason 1: Classifying what is primary or secondary may be subjective. Thus author's opinion may be different from the end user.
- Reason 2: In the process of specifying alternatives to content, the author will implicitly declare which modalities are important.
What about the case where there is a combination of primary modalities important to consuming the content? How is this handled?
- Example: content requires ability to see AND hear
- Example: content requires ability to see OR hear
- Does being an AND or OR really change the alternative modalities?
Thinking aloud - a video requires a user to be able to see AND hear
- If the user prefers visuals, but not audio - the alternative would be captions, or transcripts
- If the user prefers auditory, but not visuals - the alternative would be captions, transcripts, or tactile
- If the user prefers neither visuals or audio - the alternative would be tactile
Now for the "OR" scenario - a video requires that a user be able to see OR hear
- If the user prefers visuals, but not audio - then the content is okay.
- If the user prefers auditory, but not visuals - then the content is okay.
- If the user prefers neither visuals or audio - the alternative would be tactile