W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2002

RE: WCAG conformance profiles (no plain text)

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:32:37 +0200
To: "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <012501c28fe0$e595a0f0$7200000a@patirsrv.patir.com>

my two cents:

Meta data is the way to go, if people can not write meta data, a simple
online  form can be made to help the author it. (I will volunteer  if

Meta data allows for meta data searches, so that users can find the content
that they can use....
But, different users have different requirements -  if I am colorblind, I
care about the perceivablity a lot more then if  alt tags are filled in.
So searchers and categorization should be supported at a checkpoint level,
and even a known technique level
In other words meta data should specified conformance at:
 *   an overall level (as with EARL)
 *   checkpoint level,
 *   and at a known techniques level
This is not so difficult - we just need a URI for each technique and

I am not suggesting that authors have to stipulate every checkpoint, however
if some accessibility fetchers are supported beyond the overall conformance
level of the page, the author should be _able_ to tell the audience who need
it most.

I do not know if EARL support this, but I could not find it.

All the best,

Lisa Seeman

UnBounded Access

Widen the World Web

lisa@ubaccess.com <mailto:lisa@ubaccess.com>
www.ubaccess.com <http://www.ubaccess.com/>
Tel: +972 (2) 675-1233
Fax: +972 (2) 675-1195

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Jason White
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 2:36 AM
To: Web Content Guidelines
Subject: Re: WCAG conformance profiles (no plain text)

Al Gilman writes:
 > At 04:58 AM 2002-11-17, you wrote:
 > >I think text and EARL should be the preferred methods of making
 > >claims.
 > You should strike 'text' from that list.  In its place a
 > literate-programming binding of the EARL model for ease of reading is
 > strongly suggested in this case, or better yet three of these.

While I agree with Al in principle, I would also expect resistance
from those who aren't competent in the use of metadata, or who have
the concerns of such authors in mind. As a result we will probably
have to allow textual claims as is customary, though continuing to
emphasize the advantages of Earl. A set of supplied Earl to XHTML/SVG
etc., XSLT transformations would help to ease the transition, too.
Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2002 10:33:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:42 UTC