W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org > June 2004

RE: Draft ERT WG Charter for review and comment

From: William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 15:47:39 -0700
Message-Id: <6.1.0.6.2.20040607151810.01e9c570@pop3.gorge.net>
To: "Shadi Abou-Zahra" <shadi@w3.org>
Cc: "'Josh Krieger'" <josh@zafu.com>, <w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org>, "Joshua Allen" <joshuaa@microsoft.com>, wendy@w3.org
At 10:07 AM 6/7/2004, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
>clarify a little more what you mean,

Most WAI (and W3C for that matter) activities produce documents that fall 
under the heading of "recommendations" which are sort of guideline-based 
"standards" describing what/how to do. I think that what needs doing in 
this area (Evaluation/Repair/Descripton) would be better served with an 
actual application that evaluated/repaired/described a Web "document" in 
the same vein as is done by the HTML validator and Tidy.

This requires a different mindset on the part of the participants as well 
as different sorts of participants - more programmers, less essayists.

Originally EARL was proposed by the late/lamented Len Kasday to make it 
possible for Web authors to make claims about what features concerning 
accessibility were contained in their efforts and nothing much has been 
done since. It's not a trivial undertaking but is probably necessary so 
that there is at least a semblance of objectivity of providing 
accessibility and device independence by using a utility that assists in 
the Web entity creation process.

This is easier said than done, but I think we need to try with that outcome 
in mind.

--
Love.

Everyone/everything/everywhere/always connected 


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.688 / Virus Database: 449 - Release Date: 5/18/2004
Received on Monday, 7 June 2004 18:47:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Thursday, 9 June 2005 12:10:42 GMT