W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-ert@w3.org > May 2007

RE: content adaptation (was Re: Last Call Review: EARL 1.0 Schema Last Call Working Draft)

From: shuaib <skarim@ifs.tuwien.ac.at>
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 17:17:57 +0000
To: "'Shadi Abou-Zahra'" <shadi@w3.org>
Cc: <public-wai-ert@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000b01c78c14$9bfafbe0$a7a8a8c0@turion641>

Hi Shadi,

The points (2-5) I mentioned were somehow inter-related. If the ontology of
WCAG exists then its semantics can be used in EARL schema (and also by
vendor testing tools). In that case the added semantics of earl:Test Result
could make more sense.

In present schema, can we add the reason of the Outcome Value? For example
under earl:fail, why "The Test Subject did not meet the Test Criterion" ? Is
it due to the syntactic / semantic incoherence between the Test Criterion
and the Test Subject, or some contextual factors? It could be useful for
automatic rectification in next activation of the testing tool.
earl:notTested; due to unavailability of assertor, web site down or
something else? Similarly the reasons for other Outcome Values make sense.
It is written in parentheses "or subclasses of them". Does that mean it is
left open for the users?

Some tests may be dependant upon others. I think "dependsUpon" relationship
is different from "hasPart / isPartOf". How we are handling their results in
the schema?

Many things in the schema seem to be linked with the assumptions /
requirements coming from the testing tools, which should be documented
somewhere! If those are already satisfied then these suggestions, if valid,
can be considered for further improvements.

Best regards,
Shuaib Karim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shadi Abou-Zahra [mailto:shadi@w3.org]
> Sent: Samstag, 28. April 2007 12:20
> To: shuaib
> Cc: public-wai-ert@w3.org
> Subject: content adaptation (was Re: Last Call Review: EARL 1.0 Schema
> Last Call Working Draft)
> Hi Shuaib,
> shuaib wrote:
> > 4.    Since EARL is also supposed to provide reusable vocabulary for
> generic
> > quality assurance and validation purposes. I was thinking that the
> results
> > data gathered (in earl:Test Result) could be enriched and represented
> > formally so as to be usable on the fly for software adaptation. For
> example
> > the usability of the product can be dynamically adjusted based upon
> input
> > usability tests and the corresponding results.
> The usage of EARL for content adaptation purposes is certainly an
> important aspect. However, can you please clarify what you mean by
> enriching and formally representing the gathered data? It would be
> helpful if you can point out specific issues with the schema as it
> currently stands, or if you have specific suggestions on improvements.
> Regards,
>    Shadi
> --
> Shadi Abou-Zahra     Web Accessibility Specialist for Europe |
> Chair & Staff Contact for the Evaluation and Repair Tools WG |
> World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)           http://www.w3.org/ |
> Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI),   http://www.w3.org/WAI/ |
> WAI-TIES Project,                http://www.w3.org/WAI/TIES/ |
> Evaluation and Repair Tools WG,    http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/ |
> 2004, Route des Lucioles - 06560,  Sophia-Antipolis - France |
> Voice: +33(0)4 92 38 50 64          Fax: +33(0)4 92 38 78 22 |
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2007 06:06:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:55:55 UTC