W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > February 2001

Re: 12 February 2001 ER WG Telecon Minutes

From: Sean B. Palmer <sean@mysterylights.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:43:14 -0000
Message-ID: <025901c09523$a945ece0$13d993c3@z5n9x1>
To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>
> A practical example, a program that would do something so
> that people could play with it, would make it easier to grasp.

I agree. Do we have anything that we can play around with, though? We need
some sort of foundations of a vocabulary before we can do anything with it.
At the moment, an idea about EARL is out of date before it is even
published. Still, it would be possible to extend the type of thing that I
showed earlier with the CWM rulsfile, where we can make assumptions based
on any given EARL (N3) file.

> Perhaps we need an EARL term "needs longdesc" or "needs alt."
> or more generic "needs attribute." That's a defined EARL Term,
> then give the name of the attribute.

Yes; I think that anything which isn't a "core" to EARL should be defined
in an EARL module. "needsLongdesc" and "needsAlt" could be part of an ADL
module, i.e. these could both be types of earl:requires, where
earl:requires is a class. I'd like people to think more about
modularization of EARL: if we have all of the central, most definitive,
"universal" terms all in the core vocabulary, then it means that it can be
solidly maintained. Every time someone adds a new tags to an XML langauge
that needs asserting about, we don't want to have to update EARL. We can
let people do this themsleves in an EARL module.

> WL Wherever you got the image from, could carry such a thing.
> I vote that we stick with 4 and go on.
> WC Don't need to limit it to 4, currently have: "needs/doesn't-need/
> unchecked/appropriate/inappropriate/should-be"

This is all core vocabulary stuff, I think. These are examples of terms
that could be universally applied to any subset use of EARL.

> LK I've never seen a page that uses object.

http://purl.org/swag/whatIsSW works great in IE5...

> LK Need a rating scale?

Rating systems are odd because a lot of the time they are ambiguous.
Sometimes it is difficult to tell if a page is WCAG AA compliant... and
what if a page is fully AAA compliant, but fails on one "A" checkpoint?
EARL needs to be able to say *exactly* what's going on, not some "well, I
think this document is 95% accessible", although it should allow for that
too.

Sorry I couldn't be on the call... *sigh*

--
Kindest Regards,
Sean B. Palmer
@prefix : <http://webns.net/roughterms/> .
[ :name "Sean B. Palmer" ] :hasHomepage <http://infomesh.net/sbp/> .
Received on Monday, 12 February 2001 13:46:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:38 GMT