[uf-discuss] Human and machine readable data format
danbri at danbri.org
Tue Jul 1 11:16:00 PDT 2008
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
More information about the microformats-discuss