Re: ERT Action Item: Use Case Scenarios for EARL

On Fri, 01 Apr 2005 00:37:33 +1000, Carlos Iglesias  
<> 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...



Charles McCathieNevile                      Fundacion Sidar   +61 409 134 136

Received on Thursday, 31 March 2005 14:58:48 UTC