►
From YouTube: OpenActive W3C Community Call / 2020-05-06
Description
Revisiting Accessibility
* History
* Current proposal
A
A
Okay,
fantastic!
Thank
you
all,
so
this
call
is
going
to
be
concerning
an
issue
which
I
think
has
been
in
open
actors
focus
for
a
long
time.
It's
got
a
bit
of
a,
I
think,
a
piecemeal
history
with
the
project.
So
this
is
accessibility,
I.e,
communicating
using
our
data
standards.
What
kind
of
services
and
facilities
are
available
to
people
with
enhanced
accessibility
needs.
A
A
So
this
conversation,
I
think,
will
be
largely
about
validating
or
questioning
some
of
the
assumptions
in
the
proposals
from
a
business
point
of
view,
in
terms
of
who
we
consult
for
making
sure
that
the
proposal
actually
meets
accessibility
needs.
I
think
that
will
mostly
be
handled
by
consultation
with
interested
parties
like
uk,
active
and.
A
A
A
This
was,
I
think,
basically,
a
list
that
emd
was
using
or
had
evolved
over
the
years
sort
of
ad
hoc
to
describe
the
suitability
of
some
of
their
courses,
so
whether
they
were
good
for
post-operative
conditions,
whether
they
were
good
for
cancer
support.
That
kind
of
thing
very
much,
a
sort
of
heterogeneous
list
of
terms
there's
also
been
accessibility,
support,
which
is
a
more
principled
approach
which
nick
authored-
and
this
was
kind
of
a
top-level
classification
of
you-
know,
sensory
impairments,
mobility
impairments,
learning
disabilities.
C
C
I
think,
there's
probably
in
the
archive
somewhere,
there's
a
video
on
this,
but
we
leaded
a
comprehensive
analysis
of
the
feeds
available
at
the
time
with
it
with
a
spreadsheet
and
then
from
all
the
feeds
that
had
accessibility,
information
in
we
drilled
down,
and
that
was
where
that
that
small
list
came
from.
That's
that
that
vocabulary
so
then
publish
that
as
a
json
file.
And
then,
when
emd
came
to
adopt
the
the
standard,
they
noticed
that
there
was
one
missing
which
was
around
social,
something:
oh
social,
behavioral.
C
That's
right!
That's
right!
Exactly
so!
Emd
proposed
that
and
we
added
that,
and
so
that's
it.
So
it's
it's
bottom
up.
With
the
exception
of
that
entry,
which
is
from
emd
and
by
bottom
up
I
mean
that
was
that
was
at
the
time
all
the
all
the
activity
finders
that
were
around.
We
were
doing
something
like
that,
but
this
was
about
three
or
four
years
ago.
A
Okay,
so
so
both
of
those
are
based
on
sort
of
what
the
sector
is
doing
is
doing
now.
What
was
doing
at
the
time
sort
of
about
the
data
that
was
available,
then
I
think
the
issue
sort
of
laid
dormant
for
a
couple
of
years.
I
revived
it
back
in
about
november.
I
think
looking
at
it
from
the
opposite
perspective,
so
less
where
we
are
now
with
what
we're
doing
now
and
more
where
we
would
like
to
be.
A
That
was
mostly
motivated
by
the
fact
that
sport
england
had
released
a
few
reports
that
were
fairly
substantial
about
accessibility
provision
and
what
was
needed
in
the
sector
and
what
was
missing
in
a
sector
in
particular.
So
I
read
those
and
came
up
with
a
an
initial
proposal.
Basically,
it
was
a
little
bit
hard
to
validate,
though,
simply
because
I
wasn't.
I
wasn't
too
sure
whether
reading
a
few
sport
england
reports,
even
though
they
were
quite
comprehensive,
was
enough.
A
So
I
then,
just
recently,
after
talking
with
uk,
active
a
little
bit
and
feeling
more
confident
that
we
could
assemble
people
to
review
the
issue
from
the
accessibility
side.
I
then
made
I
just
did
a
sort
of
take
two
of
that
I
read
a
few
more
documents
from
the
activity
alliance
looked
a
little
bit
at
national
and
international
standards
for
for
describing
disability,
and
that
has
led
to
a
second
accessibility
proposal,
along
with
a
proposal
for
essentially
bulking
up
the
controlled
vocabularies
that
we
already
have
and
systematizing
them
a
bit
bef.
A
There's
a
couple
of
changes
to
sort
of
top
level
data
points.
The
first
one
is
to
use
transport
node,
which
is
right
now
defined
only
on
the
root
specification
and
make
that
part
of
the
opportunity
specification
itself.
Transport
note
is
a
fairly
simple
data
objective,
but
it
basically
tells
people
how
to
get
to
the
venue.
A
The
reason
it's
accessibility
relevant
is
simply
because
public
well
two
reasons.
The
first
is
that
typically
accessibility
provision
is
quite
centralized,
so
equipment
like
pool
hoists
and
that
kind
of
thing
tends
to
really
only
be
available
at
the
larger
leisure
centers,
and
people
with
enhanced
accessibility
needs
often
are
reliant
on
public
transport.
A
A
C
Well,
why
why
are
they
orthogonal
sorry
to
I'm?
Just
try
and
understand
so
you've
got
you've,
got
accessibility,
information,
which
is
the
generally
so
in
the
example
of
british
cycling.
It's
like
this
is
a
number.
You
call
to
understand
more
about
the
requirements
and
we'll
talk
you
through
it,
that
type
of
text
and
and
that
special
requirements
is
obviously,
as
you
say,
that
emd's
more
specific
list
of
of
what
they
consider
to
be
accessibility
and
categories
of
some
sort.
A
Yeah,
so
this
yeah,
it's
just
how
do
those
relate
to
each
other,
so
you've
got
one
list
that
was
just
sort
of
emd's
evolved
list
of
things
that
they've
got.
Basically
accessibility
support
was
a
kind
of
I
guess,
generalization
of
special
requirements,
and
then
accessibility
information
was
there
to
give
further
information
about
either
of
those.
C
Access
to
information
is
just
context
for
just
free
text
context,
because
most
of
the
research
that
at
the
time
showed
that
the
accessibility
requirements
are
generally
it's
a
complex
thing.
It's
really
difficult
to
codify.
So
the
best
thing
to
do
is
to
include
information
about
how
someone
with
accessibility
needs,
can
contact
the
activity
provider
and
and,
and
that
would
be
what
that
accessible
information
generally
had
in
it.
A
C
A
A
You
can
you
can
see
how
there's
a
kind
of
conceptual
blurriness
there.
I
guess,
which
is
maybe
helpful
in
the
sense
that,
because
accessibility
needs
are
widely
defined,
there's
a
wide
variety
of
things
you
might
want
to
say
about
them,
but
it
creates
problems
for
parsing
like
what
are
you
expecting
to
find
in
accessibility
information?
I
guess.
C
Yeah
right
that
that
stuff
just
gets
displayed
to
the
user
that
doesn't
there's
no
there's
no
kind
of
filtering
happening
there.
I
suppose
the
idea
broadly
was
that
accessibility,
support
and
special
requirements
are
used
for
filtering
and
accessibility.
Information
was
used
to
display
to
the
user
information
that
they
can
then
use
to
act,
but
then
there
wasn't
anything
more
possible
than
that.
A
C
Guess
my
question
would
be:
if
we,
if
we
are
dropping
accessibility
information,
it
would
seem
that
we
would
need
to
replace
it
with
some
free
text
field
somewhere
unless
that
requirement
for
free
text,
information
which,
because
a
lot
of
publishers-
just
just
don't
just-
have
an
accessibility
statement
right,
they
don't
have
even
the
detail
to
fill
out
more
than
that.
So
I
guess
that's
what
I'm
interested
in.
C
If
we're
dropping
a
field
which
is
currently
populated
in
the
data
right
now
by
publishers
that
don't
necessarily
have
more
information
than
they
are
publishing,
then
that
would
seem
to
be
losing
information.
So
I
guess
no
so
so
dropping
something
where
there's
information
being
lost.
That
would
be
a
question
of
well.
Where
does
that
then
go
and
what's
our
advice
to
those
publishers?
But
sorry
I
don't
mean
to
to
get
into
the
weeds
on
that
one,
but
that
well.
A
Hopefully,
participant
condition
supported,
so
this
would
be
taking
the
place
of
the
old
cvs.
Basically,
so
this
would
be
the
bit
that
was
about
what
kind
of
disabilities
or
accessibility
needs
were
generally
being
met,
description
which
would
be
a
free
text
field,
and
I
guess,
would
be
the
home
for
what
used
to
be
in
accessibility,
information
hours
available
so
with
a
lot
of
leisure
centers
that
offer
accessibility,
support.
A
So
it's
often
important
to
couple
availability
with
information
about
accessibility.
So
if
you
do
offer
use
for
pool
hoist-
or
something
like
that,
you
have
to
make
indicate
when
that's
actually
there
is
advanced
notice
required,
is
a
refinement
of
the
same
issue.
In
that
often
it's
not
even
a
question
of
hours
being
available.
It's
about
advanced
notice
being
needed,
so
you
actually
have
to
book
in
to
use
some
particular
dedicated
piece
of
equipment.
A
I
did
find
there
was
often
a
lot
of
accessibility,
information
on
particular
web
pages,
but
of
course,
if
what
you
have
is
an
rpge
feed
of
events,
then
that
information
is
largely
lost.
So
I
guess,
there's
a
question
about
how
we
link
those
pieces
of
information
together,
assuming
that
we
don't
necessarily
want
to
be
copying
information
into
every
single
event
and
then
there's
a
review
possible.
A
A
Another
top
level
property
accessibility,
support
level.
This
reflects
a
division
used
in
activity
alliance
reports
about
whether
accessibility
support
is
seen
as
something
that
is
well
simply
non-existent,
whether
it's
something
that
exists
as
part
of
regular
classes
or
whether
there's
actually
dedicated
classes
or
a
separate
track
for
people
with
accessibility
needs
and
that's
quite
important
top
level
information.
So
that's
represented
there.
A
We
don't
want
it
to
be
scattered
between
these
two
things
so
that
you
have
to
parse
both
if
you
want
good
accessibility
information,
so
that
is
the
proposal
as
a
whole.
Nick
made
a
comment
on
there,
just
that
this
is.
This
is
ambitious,
basically
and
there's
a
cost
involved
to
data
publishers
about
getting
this
kind
of
information
and
integrating
it
into
the
system.
A
A
The
activity
alliance's
2019
survey,
which
was
just
published,
indicated
that
it
was
a
large
proportion,
something
like
40
of
people
with
disabilities
are
classified
as
inactive,
so
they're,
not
getting
30
minutes
of
physical
activity
a
week
and
80
said
that
they
wanted
to
do
more.
So
it
seems
like
this
is
a
crucial
need
to
address,
but
it
is
about
the
practicality
of
addressing
it
within
the
data
format
and
getting
this
kind
of
information.
A
B
A
A
C
C
You
know
with
some
kind
of
more
tail
provider
systems,
plugging
in
and
and
then
just
you
know,
putting
these
fields
in
and
seeing
if
we
can
populate
them,
but
I
kind
of
feel
like
before
we
go
ahead
and
so
as
much
as
this.
This
is.
This
is
like
a
really
great
start,
because
this
is
starting
from
the
standards
and
working
backwards.
Almost
I
feel
like
we.
C
So
more
fields
isn't
necessarily
better
generally,
it
seems
because
people
don't
generally
use
them,
and
so
I
guess
that's
that's
the
thing.
If
we're
moving
from
like
a
blanket
some
text
in
here
to
yeah
putting
putting
all
this
information
to
lots
of
different
places
in
lots
of
different
fields,
then
yeah
implementation
experience
so
far
shows
that
we'll
likely
get
less
uptake
of
that
across
a
number
of
activity
funds.
C
Unless
this
is
part
of
a
wider
initiative
that
brings
in
the
activity
finders
that
brings
in
some
of
the
publishers
that
brings
in
you
know
all
these
different
stakeholders
and
says
we're
going
to
try
this
and
we're
going
to
make
sure
it
works
end
to
end
we're
going
to
get
some
users
involved.
I
guess
that's
that's
kind
of
what
I
was
saying
in
the
comments,
probably
rather
than
starting
from
the
spec.
A
A
C
C
Yes,
I
wasn't
saying
back
to
square
one
yeah
totally.
I
was
saying
we
should
take
what
we've
got
here
and
test
it
with
people
before
we
before
we
move
to
push
mass
adoption
or
integrate
it
into
the
standard.
The
first
thing
is
probably
to
test
it
with
like,
so
you
know
with
no
technology,
just
putting
it
in
in
real
terms
in
front
of
people
with
mocked
up
interfaces
or
whatever.
C
Well,
I
guess,
like
I
was
saying
users
on
both
sides,
so
people
that
would
put
the
information
in
on
the
one
side
who
have
who
have
sessions
that
would
be
applicable
here
and
people
who
would
search
on
the
other
side
to
see
if
the
information
being
displayed
is
useful
because
because
I
suppose
the
reason
I'm
saying
that
is
the
cost
of
implementing
this
is
so
enormous,
because
all
the
different
systems
will
have
to
adopt
this
and
pushing
that
through.
All
the
systems,
as
we
know
can
be,
can
be.
D
A
A
A
C
Yeah,
that
sounds
exactly
the
kind
of
thing
I
guess
I
mean.
If
you
think
about
the
way
you
would
design
a
system
as
you
would.
You
would
wireframe
at
first
and
you
might
even
test
those
wireframes
with
people
or
at
least
have
a
good
idea
about
how
you
would
yeah
what
what
your
users
were.
What
the
mvp
would
look
like
you,
maybe
would
create
something
very
basic
and
quick
and
get
it
child.
A
C
Well,
it's
both
right!
So
when
you
add
a
new
field
to
a
system,
you
have
to
go
around
and
get
everyone
to
fill
in
the
field
and
you
have
to
build
it
into
a
user
interface,
expose
it
in
your
feed
and
on
the
other
side,
people
who
are
consuming
that
information
have
to
expose
it
in
the
search.
Add
any
relevant
filters.
If
that's
that's
required,
so
there's
quite
a
lot
of
steps
and
then
see
if
people
use
it
at
the
end.
D
I
I
also
suspect,
nick,
I
kind
of
agree
with
your
your
thoughts
about
just
going
to
market
with
the
concepts
first,
in
that
I
think
this
is
going
to
sort
of.
Potentially,
the
requirements
differ
quite
greatly
between
sort
of
low
level,
maybe
like
tail
activity
providers
for
using
a
coiny
or
phrase
people.
D
C
Yeah,
I
mean
some
real
examples
here.
Yeah
absolutely
agree.
So
if
you
were
thinking
about
this
in
the
context
of
something
like
the
gladstone
system,
you
would
be
looking
at.
You
know
that
this
the
example
here
is
within
a
slot,
but
slots
are
massive
like
there's.
There's
a
huge
volume
of
slots,
so
to
add
this
to
a
slot
would
be
would
be
something
that
would
be
very
time
intensive
for
an
organization
to
do.
C
They
might
want
to
add
a
further
a
level
further
up,
but
the
way
this
is
designed
is
for
good
reason
at
the
moment
is
that
you
know
this
is
all
specific
information
about
that
slot.
So
there's
one:
what's
the
inclusion
support
for
that
one
slot,
but
that,
like
I
said
if,
if
you've
got,
you
know,
hundreds
of
thousands
of
activities
running
across
your
estate,
putting
that
information
in
and
maintaining
it
is,
is
a
burden
that
they
might
not
want
to
take
on.
C
A
C
So
the
accessibility
information
at
the
moment
is
event
level
and
that
session
series
can
be
scheduled
session.
So
you
can
leverage
the
hierarchy
to
put
that
information
at
any
point
that
makes
sense
so
so
yeah
we
could
put
the
information
in
the
same
place.
I
guess
I
see,
I
guess
it's
yeah
yeah
yeah,
it's
probably
it's
probably
quite
a
similar
idea.
Actually
in
terms
of
this.
These
fields
that
you've
kind
of
this
example
here
could
go
at
any
level.
C
B
C
D
C
D
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
Hyde
park
park
run,
has
has,
has
people
available
x
likewise
that
other
park
from
doesn't
have
people
available,
though
again
this
kind
of
gets
more
wobbly
with
that,
because
the
the
running
guides
provision
is
actually
sort
of
separate
and
in
parallel
with
park
run.
So
you,
as
a
partially
sighted
runner,
can
access
that
for
a
run
that
you're
just
doing
on
your
own.
It's
not
so
I
I
guess
you
know
we're
limiting
this
to
the
the
session.
B
It
itself,
you
know
that's
what
we're
talking
about
here
is
not.
I
don't
know
how
we
would
model
that
facility
outside
the
context
of
there
being
some
session
that
we're
talking
about
and
then
the
other
one
is
just
again
just
trying
to
go
for
clicking
next
prompt
sort
of
real
world
examples.
There's
a
co-biking
scheme
in
a
local
country
park
here,
where
people
with
both
learning
and
physical
needs
can
ride
a
a
sort
of
a
double
tricycle
type
thing
with
somebody
else
and
they'll.
B
B
And
I
guess
british
blind
who
manages
the
who
organizes
the
accreditation
and
dbs
checks
and
things
for
for
guidelines
so
again
good
organizations
to
maybe
reach
out
to
as
part
of
that
sure
that
does
this
fit
the
bill
for
you
guys
and
maybe
talk
to
some
part-run
guys
where
you've
got.
You
know,
british
blind
sport
is
not
going
to
necessarily
be
talking
about
publishing,
but
they
may
be
supportive
in
how
you
define
things
and
then.
B
A
A
A
A
So
it
did
seem
to
me
that
what
we
do
need
to
have
some
kind
of
standard
representation
of
the
kinds
of
accessibility
needs
that
the
sector
caters
for
or
could
cater
for,
but
that
we
didn't
really
have
a
good
list
for
that
right
now.
All
of
the
ones
that
we
had
were
just
slightly
slightly
overlapping
did
slightly
different
things.
It
wasn't
entirely
clear
how
they
related
to
each
other
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
A
So
I
made
a
tentative
stab
at
what
I
ended
up,
calling
the
participant
condition
supported
controlled
vocabulary,
which
is
a
list
that
looks
like
this
on
issue
241.,
I'm
not
I'm
certainly
in
would
be
interested
to
hear
feedback
on
the
contents
of
the
list,
and
nick
has
already
made
a
couple
of
good
points
about
things
like
terminology
and
the
relationship
of
items
in
the
hierarchy
to
each
other.
So
I
think
it
would
be
useful
to
have
feedback
on
the
actual
contents
of
the
list.
A
A
So
my
feeling
is
that
if
we
did
want
to
have
a
controlled
vocabulary
like
this,
we'd
probably
actually
need
to
make
this
a
continuous
curation
process
kind
of
along
the
lines
of
the
activity
list.
Where
we've
got
a
committee
of
people
who
oversee
the
activity
list
to
meet
on
a
regular
basis
and
say:
okay,
this
goes
in
the
list
at
this
point.
This
doesn't
go
in
the
list
or
it
should
be
moved
to
a
separate
part
of
the
list
or
whatever.
A
A
B
B
Yeah,
I
guess
it
looks
great
and
I've
no
idea
whether
it's
right
and
so
it's
a
question
of
who
we
can
ask
it's
right
and
whether
their
response
is
actually
meaningful
or,
as
you
say,
whether
it's
to
to
leave
it
open
and
and
see
how
see
how
the
contributions
come
to
it.
It's
it's
a
little
hard
to
know.
A
There's
obviously
weird
gaps
like
I
was
basing
it
on
values
we
already
had
so
under
cancer
support
right
now,
there's
only
breast
cancer
support,
and
presumably
that's
you
know
as
many
as
there
are
kinds
of
cancer.
There
are
kinds
of
cancer
supports,
but
so
there's
obvious
gaps
there
right
now,
there's.
C
There's
also
yeah,
as
I
yes
chris,
was
saying,
I
think,
there's
there's
a
thing
about
who
do
we
ask
and
the
other
thing
that
I'm
aware
of
is
that
that
we
might
even
be
offending
people
without
knowing
right,
because
we
just
don't
know
the
domain.
For
example,
pregnancy
support
is
currently
under
what
what
was
the
heading
above
it
in
the
list.
C
A
Oh
yeah,
I
mean,
for
instance,
under
actually
under
here
labeling
hearing
impairment.
A
lot
of
the
hard
of
hearing
and
deaf
societies
really
reject
the
impairment
label
so
yeah.
It
is
very
much
a
political
kind
of
question,
and
so
the
issue
of
who
you
ask
and
what
kind
of
labels
you
use
yeah
it
does
is,
is
an
involved
one.
A
C
Is
it
great?
It's
a
great
start.
Sorry,
I
don't
know
I'm
to
restate
my
point
from
it.
This
is
all
brilliant,
really
good
progress.
I
don't
think
this
is
this.
Is
this
is
definitely
steps
in
the
right
direction
because
bringing
these
vocabularies
together
we
didn't
have
anyone
who
was,
I
don't
think
brave
enough
to
do
it
before
because
of
all
the
reasons
outlined
so
good
good
we've
got
that.
A
C
By
it
sounds
like
it's,
people
in
this
school
are
really
helpful
in
terms
of
figuring
out
which
stakeholders
to
involve,
but
it's
almost
like
if
we
can
make
sure
that
if
we
get
to
the
end
of
this
and
and
all
the
bodies
that
were
involved
in
those
reports,
I
will
all
look
at
it
and
go
yep.
I'm
I'm
with
you
on
that.
That
was
I'm
glad
you
spearheaded
this
and
we've
come
with
you
on
the
journey
and
we're
behind
the
result,
and
we
can
see
it's
been
validated
and
we're
happy
to
back
it.
C
Then
I
think
that's
a
really
strong
place
to
go
to
all
the
systems
and
say
right
now
we're
going
to
need
to
prioritize
this
in
your
backlog,
because
this
is
going
to
create.
You
know
significant
benefit
for
a
lot
of
users
and
and,
like
I
said,
like
learning
lessons
from
that
from
the
the
stuff
we
did
around
virtual.
Only
recently,
we
we
defined
a
whole
bunch
of
properties
there.
Only
a
very
very
small
number
of
those
actually
have
uptake.
C
I
think
one,
maybe
across
the
board,
two
or
three
maybe
have
have
90
coverage
and
then
the
rest
is,
you
know
one
one
or
two
providers
implemented.
So
I
I
think
you
know,
if
we're
going
to
have
everyone
adopt
all
of
these
fields.
I
think
we
really
need
to
have
a
compelling
like
this
is
well
researched.
This
is
something
that
we
know
will
work
and
we've
got
people
that
said
it's.
A
Yeah-
and
I
think
it's
also-
I
mean
I
guess
the
other
point-
I'd
make
is
is-
is
kind
of
agreeing
with.
That
is
that
it
is
prescriptive
that
I
think
in
the
case
of
virtual
events,
you
know
where
that's
only
been
defined
for
a
month
or
six
weeks,
so
presumably
we'll
see
uptake
further
in
future
of
a
wider
variety
of
data
points.
If
that
doesn't
happen,
it's
not
a
problem.
Presumably
I
think
in
this
case
it's
slightly
different
in
that.