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

RE: WCAG conformance profiles (no plain text)

From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 10:48:48 -0500 (EST)
To: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
cc: "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0211191042510.25442-100000@tux.w3.org>

Yep, EARL supports point-by-point conformance statements to any set of points
that each have a URI.

That means you can give a URI to double-A conformance, and have a one-line
statement. You can add conformance for any particular checkpoints above that.

People can describe the checkpoints they need for their own use, and search
for things that are described in EARL as meeting that particular set of
checkpoints.

EARL, because it is RDF, can readily understand that if you meet WCAG level A
then you meet checkpoint 1.1, and other such obvious requirements.

And you can query EARL and then get a text statement or logo.

Cheers

Chaals

On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Lisa Seeman wrote:

>
>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
>necessary)
>
>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
>checkpoint
>
>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
>very
> > 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.
>
>
>

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile  http://www.w3.org/People/Charles  tel: +61 409 134 136
SWAD-E http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe ------------ WAI http://www.w3.org/WAI
 21 Mitchell street, FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia  fax(fr): +33 4 92 38 78 22
 W3C, 2004 Route des Lucioles, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France
Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2002 10:48:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:20 GMT