RE: ERT Action Item: Use Case Scenarios for EARL

I like the sound of the idea in these terms.

Regards,

CI.

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: public-wai-ert-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-wai-ert-request@w3.org] En nombre de Shadi Abou-Zahra
> Enviado el: lunes, 04 de abril de 2005 13:15
> Para: public-wai-ert@w3.org
> Asunto: Re: ERT Action Item: Use Case Scenarios for EARL
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> The idea is not to create a new logo but rather to provide a 
> mechanism to supplement the logo with an EARL report of what 
> has been tested.
> Browsers or search engines could then also process this information.
> 
> Of course, like the logos, these EARL reports may be 
> outdated, over claimed, or simply false (policing their 
> proper usage is a different issue and out of scope for this 
> WG). However, EARL reports would provide more credibility and 
> granularity than the logos (e.g. "I've tested these 
> checkpoints, therefore I claim Level-? conformance" or 
> "Except for these ? checkpoints, I have passed all other 
> checkpoints for conformance Level-?" etc).
> 
> We would need to work out a bunch of details of how to bind 
> EARL reports to the Web pages but that shouldn't be too 
> difficult (we can pick out a few ideas from RSS for example).
> 
> What do people think of the overall idea?
> 
> Regards,
>   Shadi
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-wai-ert-request@w3.org On Behalf Of Carlos Iglesias
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 12:59
> To: Giorgio Brajnik; Charles McCathieNevile
> Cc: Johannes Koch; public-wai-ert@w3.org
> Subject: RE: ERT Action Item: Use Case Scenarios for EARL
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> I agree with the idea of EARL report(s) as a more articulated 
> and complete way to communicate that the website is 
> accessible to a certain extent, the problem is that EARL is a 
> machine readable language and it's not intended to be 
> readable for people.
> 
> IMO this is the reason for not to use it in "a new 
> accessibility conformity logo" instead the one that is 
> usually linked to 
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG1A-Conformance.html.en due to this 
> claim is visible for all web users and EARL is for 
> developers, not for web users.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> CI.
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: Giorgio Brajnik [mailto:giorgio@dimi.uniud.it] Enviado el: 
> > viernes, 01 de abril de 2005 10:08
> > Para: Charles McCathieNevile
> > CC: Carlos Iglesias; Johannes Koch; public-wai-ert@w3.org
> > Asunto: 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 Monday, 4 April 2005 11:27:47 UTC