Guillaume Lebleu wrote:
Glenn Jones wrote:
As the exchange between Ben and Jeremy has shown what is human readable
is up for debate. Having spent far too much time looking at the ISO date
formats they are all readable to me, but I know that's not the case for
everyone else.
We need to expand the discussion and ask those involved in the
accessibility area what is an acceptable human readable format. The
format 2008-01-25 is a compromise and as such we need to ask the other
party is it's an acceptable middle ground. For example would the BBC
accept 2008-01-25 in the title of a abbr.
Since the BBC's request was specifically related to screen readers, we
may want to distinguish "machine-readable", "human-readable" and
"human-hearable". I think there is less debate re: what is
"human-hearable" than there is debate re: what is "human-readable"
This reading is a little narrow: screen readers can also have Braille
output; eg. see http://www.yourdolphin.com/productdetail.asp?id=5&z=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refreshable_Braille_display
cheers,
Dan
--
http://danbri.org/
_______________________________________________
microformats-discuss mailing list
microformats-discuss@microformats.org
http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss
