RE: ERT Action Item: Use Case Scenarios for EARL

 

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: public-wai-ert-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-wai-ert-request@w3.org] En nombre de Giorgio Brajnik
> Enviado el: lunes, 04 de abril de 2005 13:33
> Para: shadi@w3.org
> CC: public-wai-ert@w3.org
> Asunto: Re: ERT Action Item: Use Case Scenarios for EARL
> 
> 
> And I have one comment regarding Carlos' answer  >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.
> 
> Right. But, as some of scenarios suggests, there could be 
> services that would allow end users to load, merge, compare 
> different earl reports. 
> The same service could translate into more or less plain 
> English the content of the report.
> A skeptical user could then feed this service with the earl 
> report attached to the logo and compare that report with the 
> pages that she/he is looking at; or just upload the service 
> with a new report produced by her/his preferred testing 
> system and compare the two.

The idea it's good but I have two comments:

1 - replace english with whatever language the user want.

2 - I'm sure this is something that an accessibility expert or an
accessibility expert will loves, but I'm a little bit hesitate about the
rest of the users. I know from experience that common users, even
project managers, usually want just a measure (a mark) or a certificate
of the accessibility, they don't care about the details because they
don't know anything about web accessibility. I know, it's a pity but...

Regards,

CI.