Re: Hello!

Paul
as a metadata fan, I do think that good labeling is part of making  
'good' content, whatever its audience, so yes, I sort of agree with  
you. The only hesitation I have is that we are not actually proposing  
WCAG labeling. In our case, we are keen to see content labeled to  
show the accessibility characteristics of significance to the  
individual user. What is the difference? I personally might think it  
is very nice if all content is WCAG compliant, as I do, but when I as  
a user seek something, the only labels of interest to me are those  
with details about things that I may want to change or use. Our  
labeling is not aimed at compliance, because we anticipate  
distributed, cumulative solutions to accessibility and 'compliance'  
labeling of resources does not really help with this. Compliance  
labeling shows how closely the resource complies with the WCAG  
(something someone might want to know, especially system  
administrators and external bodies of various kinds) but our labeling  
is more about using criteria, and tests, perhaps from WCAG and maybe  
sometimes from other places, that provide the info an individual user  
needs.

So a long answer - but I did want to make clear the difference  
between 'compliance' labeling and what we might think of as  
informative labeling.

So, glad to be involved and keen to see progress!

Liddy


On 10/02/2006, at 6:44 PM, Paul Walsh, Segala wrote:

>
> Hi Liddy,
>
> You are absolutely right. We saw Web accessibility as a primary use  
> case,
> it's actually documented in the Charter [1]. It would be great to  
> get your
> feedback, I'd particularly like to hear from you when you apply  
> content
> labelling to your own accessible websites.
>
> To further your thought process, don't you think content labelling  
> makes
> accessibility more appealing by using the benefit of search  
> indexing? Search
> engines and browsers in the near future could highlight websites  
> deemed to
> be 'trustworthy' using a Content Label. By labelling content you  
> increase
> your chances of your site being highlighted in new versions of search
> engines and browsers that look for such labels.
>
> Using accessibility as an example, if a user can view only sites  
> which allow
> text to be resized to the 'largest' browser setting, a Content  
> Label will
> distinguish sites with this ability. Users may even filter out  
> websites that
> are not labelled for this functionality in the future.
>
> This would permit companies to make declarations about conformance to
> individual WAI accessibility guidelines without the restrictive  
> requirement
> to meet the complete list of claims required for WAI Single-A,  
> Double-A or
> Treble-A conformance. Equally you could state conformance to those  
> sets if
> you choose.
>
> This would make content labelling suitable for sites in a gradual  
> process of
> converting to accessibility, as well as very large sites in which  
> it would
> be impossible or wasteful to try to make every page accessible in  
> one go.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2005/Incubator/wcl/wcl-charter-20060208
>
> Thanks,
> Paul
>
> -----
> www.segala.com
>
>
>
>
>       -----Original Message-----
>       From: public-xg-wcl-request@w3.org
>       [mailto:public-xg-wcl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Liddy Nevile
>       Sent: 10 February 2006 05:30
>       To: public-xg-wcl@w3.org
>       Subject: Hello!
>
>
>       I am interested in this activity because I think it has
>       another use case, as I think I suggested to Phil some time ago?
>
>       I think that the person with accessibility needs and
>       preferences, for whatever reason, might also fit into
>       this work? I am co-author of the proposed ISO standard
>       that relates to the use of a profile of personal needs
>       and preferences (functional requirements) and the
>       resource description that is needed for a resource to be
>       matched to a user's profile. This is not just about the
>       group of people with disabilities who are, of course, in
>       need of accessibility, but anyone with a need at the
>       time, for whatever reason. Primarily, I have seen our
>       work as the metadata extension of PICS in the same way
>       that I think you are seeing it, but in a different context.
>
>       Liddy
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 10 February 2006 23:35:33 UTC