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: Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2007 12:42:25 +0200
Message-ID: <46386B11.3080405@w3.org>
To: shuaib <skarim@ifs.tuwien.ac.at>
CC: public-wai-ert@w3.org

Hi Shuaib,

Thank you for this clarification. We've had quite a bit of discussion on 
this topic in the past. ERT WG decided that both the test descriptions 
and reasoning are out of scope. We've included a rudimentary construct 
of earl:TestCriterion class and its two subclasses earl:TestRequirement 
and earl:TestCase as stubs, but not as a comprehensive test description 
language. This is briefly mentioned in an editor's note in section 2.4:
- <http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-EARL10-Schema-20070323/#testcriterion>

However, I acknowledge that we may not have clearly described the scope 
of EARL. We will probably need to synchronize this type of introductory 
information with the EARL 1.0 Guide document that is also in development 
but I agree we should include this information somewhere. I've added 
this as issue #29 on the issues list:
- <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/EARL10/issues>

Please let me know if you have further comments on this.

Regards,
   Shadi


shuaib wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 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 |
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
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 10:42:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:18:28 GMT