[Accessforall] Minutes of AccessForAll Meeting on 2012-01-31

Liddy Nevile liddy at sunriseresearch.org
Thu Feb 9 11:50:51 UTC 2012


ah-ha - I think I want to call those tags 'facets'

thanks....

Liddy

On 09/02/2012, at 6:24 PM, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:

>
>
> On Feb 9, 2012, at 12:39 AM, Liddy Nevile wrote:
>
>>
>> Gregg
>> I am not clear what you mean by tags - I think you mean the same  
>> thing as Gottfried is advocating, in fact?  properties with values?
>>
>> Liddy
>>
>
> Actually no.
>
> we START with name-value pairs (as Gottfried suggested)
>
> this is a FLAT listing of all the name:value pairs.
>
>
> but each item in the list also can have TAGS associated with it.
>
> For example
>
> Speech-Speed:<Value>
> might have tags    BLIND, SPEECH, COGNITIVE, RATE, SCREEN-READER
>
> that would allow this (and other speech parameters) to show up in a  
> search for SPEECH or BLIND or COGNITIVE or any other "Group" that it  
> might be associated with.
>
> This makes it easy for example to find all the preferences that  
> relate to SPEECH or SCREEN-READERS or  COGNITIVE or BLIND   and this  
> parameter would show up in each of those groups.  but there would  
> only ever be one name-value pair.
>
>
> NOTE that the TAGS are separate from(but associated with)  the Name- 
> Value  pairs.     RtF could have a set of tags.   HDM could have a  
> different set.    ANother group may have a hierarchical set of tags  
> that would allow the Name:value pairs to be viewed hierarchically  
> according to someones model.
>
> NONE of the TAG sets however need to be formal and anyone can use  
> any one of them.  They do not define anything.  they are just  
> different ways to of grouping and looking at or searching the long  
> list of name-value pairs to make it easier to work with them.
>
> helpful?
>



More information about the Accessforall mailing list