Re: ERT Action Item: Use Case Scenarios for EARL

 >> Johannes said
 >>
 >>> So the EARL report has to be created and linked to the logo.
 >>> It will not be a link to some on-the-fly test like with
 >>> HTML/CSS validation.
 >>
 >>
 >> And so we will have a link to some static EARL report (probably
 >> incomplete and not updated) which doesn't add nothing new compared to
 >> the current static claim text.

The fact is that the EARL report is (necessarily) a static file, that 
refers to a snapshot of the website.
But the same is true though for the posting of the conformance logo, or 
any other sort of accessibility claim *about the website*. The only way 
out is to claim something about the processes that govern the evolution 
of the website (authoring, changing, publishing), which I think is 
beyond our scope.

In my view the EARL report(s) is simply a more articulated way to 
communicate that the website (at a certain moment in time, and a certain 
set of pages and their contents -- i.e. time and space) is accessible to 
a certain extent.

I agree completely with Chaals.

Best regards
         Giorgio

Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:37:33 +1000, Carlos Iglesias  
> <carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org> wrote:
> 
>> Johannes said
>>
>>> So the EARL report has to be created and linked to the logo.
>>> It will not be a link to some on-the-fly test like with
>>> HTML/CSS validation.
>>
>>
>> And so we will have a link to some static EARL report (probably
>> incomplete and not updated) which doesn't add nothing new compared to
>> the current static claim text.
> 
> 
> In this worst case (crappy tools used stupidly) we will have a link to 
> a  report that once justified what was claimed. Even this is an 
> improvement,  as it lets us see the basis for the original claim. If we 
> set a minimal  set of properties for EARL (see my response to Giorgio) 
> we would kow  things like when the page apparently met some requirement, 
> according to  whom. Lots more than with the current use of a logo alone.
> 
> Tools like AccMonitor, that cover very large websites monitoring many  
> aspects daily, could readily produce daily updates for whatever is 
> tested.  This in fact showsone of the possible benefits of EARL - it 
> become easy to  analyse what is going wrong across a site, using output 
> from a variety of  QA tools (accessibility testing, guided manual 
> testing, validation and  other stuff). That isn't specific to EARL, it 
> is the value of a  standardised reporting language in general. Just that 
> there aren't any  with real adoption at the moment...
> 
> cheers
> 
> Chaals
>

Received on Friday, 1 April 2005 08:08:29 UTC