Re: ERT Action Item: Use Case Scenarios for EARL

On Mon, 04 Apr 2005 22:37:22 +1000, Carlos Iglesias  
<carlos.iglesias@fundacionctic.org> wrote:

>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: public-wai-ert-request@w3.org
>> [mailto:public-wai-ert-request@w3.org] En nombre de Giorgio Brajnik

>> 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.

Claro. Actually one of the nice things about using RDF is that this  
becomes relatively easy.

> 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...

People who have a particulr set of accessibility needs are more likely  
even than project managers to be more interested in somthing that meets  
their needs than in a simple mark. For example many people with cognitive  
disabilities might prefer something that conforms to a range of  
checkpoints from WCAG 1 of different priorities to something that conforms  
to level double-A but does not meet any triple-A checkpoints. A simple  
tool that can tell them if a page claims to meet their needs is likely to  
be well-appreciated by these users.

Incidentally, this is exactly the approach being taken by both IMS and  
Dublin Core to accessibility description. I realise I still owe a bit more  
of a complete description, but in a nutshell it is that with a collection  
of statements about which checkpoints (not necessarily just WCAG  
checkpoints, although if WCAG 2 is well done it will include all the  
necessary checkpoints by definition) a resource meets, so that a user can  
tell if it is suitable for them or not. (There is some more stuff about  
pointing to replacement content where appropriate, as transforming proxies  
like SWAP or IBMs thing do).

cheers

Chaals

-- 
Charles McCathieNevile                      Fundacion Sidar
charles@sidar.org   +61 409 134 136    http://www.sidar.org

Received on Monday, 4 April 2005 15:10:28 UTC