Re: Metadata (was RE: Agenda)

Implementors can make assertions in metadata about what they have done
regardless of whether they meet a given conformance level, and regardles of
whether we make it easy or hard.

I believe there are benefits to making it easy - one notable one being the
fact that people can then query for information that is useful to them,
because it meets the personal profile they suspect will work - which is
probably not a conformance level. Some things that are level-A conformant are
really horrid to use for almost everyone since they don't do anything but the
level-A minimum. Some things miss out on level-A since they are completely
inaccessible to some group, but are fantastic for some other group.

There are also implementations out there that do this. To some extent it
seems to me to be in the interrplay between the WCAG and EO groups to talk
about how to get people to make good uses of this and be aware of the bad
things that can be done (the equivalent of the stupid browser-sniffing stuff
that still gets used to exclude people from access).


cheers

Chaals

On Wed, 22 May 2002, Jason White wrote:

  Would the suggestion then be that implementors ought to be permitted
  to make assertions in metadata regarding the checkpoints which they
  have satisfied, even if they haven't met the minimal requirements of
  conformance?

  Presumably a tool which reads the metadata could distinguish between
  accessibility-related assertions not amounting to a conformance claim,
  but which might still be helpful to the user, and an actual assertion
  of conformance to the guidelines.


-- 
Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  phone: +61 409 134 136
W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI  fax: +33 4 92 38 78 22
Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)

Received on Friday, 24 May 2002 06:41:43 UTC