W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > January 2002

Re: EARL project review notes

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 19:30:13 -0000
Message-ID: <056701c1a2b2$0e4b9f80$ca969dc3@emedia.co.uk>
To: <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>
"Wendy A Chisholm":
> Another option (instead of hash) was "shingles" (suggested by Eric
Miller). Shingles give different weights to different structural parts of
a document. e.g., you might want to pay more attention to images than to
other parts of content (w.r.t. accessib
> ility).  If you want to know HOW content changes, this is more an area
of research. Shingles are just one mechanism.
> http://www8.org/w8-papers/4c-server/mirror/mirror.html
> http://www.research.compaq.com/SRC/articles/199707/cluster.html

Shingles would appear to be equivalent to what we're doing with Nick's
later hashes though isn't it?  hashing on  structure etc.  We just never
came up with a nice name for them. :-)

> Questions for consideration:
> 1. A few complicating issues: content and language negotiation;
> they may or may not affect accessibility evaluations.

content negotiation without a doubt does.  language negotiation could.

> 2. CC/PP provides small schema of info on resources.
> If people buy into RDF, then should buy into re-use,
> and should check out CC/PP predicates.
> Is CC/PP dependency with EARL accepted?

I'm sure some of you know, I don't like CC/PP I think it's a bad idea.
I'm concerned about having EARL dependant on a recommendation which
hasn't been published (the review period for the final draft ran out 6
months ago AIUI, and the groups charter has expired.) and in all use
cases that are offered (and in the very name of the group) is relevant to
mobile access.  I also have strong privacy concerns over CC/PP - even
http://www.w3.org/TR/CCPP-trust/ notes this very issue with accessibility
in mind (a rather unique occurance in the public discussions of CC/PP

"There is also a possible risk that a user can be identified as having
certain abilities (e.g. if he constantly requests text in double-sized
fonts, it is likely that he is hard of seeing), and this may be possible
to misuse."

(The mechanism suggested certainly doesn't meet my privacy concerns
relying on self certification of what the site may do with the
information, and doesn't solve accessibility as the document returned in
the p3p not accepted will still need to be accessible which means what
was the point of the CC/PP phase in the first place?)

Also as there are no browsers with CC/PP implementations it's also of
little use in current EARL, and with EARL being extensible I think we can
do without it until it is of value, and a stable published format, which
can then be easily included.

> The big win from CC/PP is that you can define a variation on a docu
> ment -if you get back a document and not a location header. EARL
> can use CC/PP info to evaluate the content in the context of the device
> on which it will be used

Could you explain this again?

Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 14:32:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:33 UTC