RE: Hello!

That's our stance too Liddy! Compliance 'and' individual preferences. 

We just happen to use the WCAG as a means of 'some' best practice design
considerations. Our goal is the same so perhaps we should chat about this on
a private list. In the meantime, I wonder if you could suggest claims that
could be added? A bit early perhaps, but sometime in the future

We are currently updating our (Segala's) label to represent more than just
WCAG, e.g. 508 and other 'official' guidelines. Then, we intend to add 'user
centred' design claims. Does this sound something similar to what you have
in mind?

The incubator activity will have a WCAG compliance label but perhaps we
could create separate labels for other usability considerations?

Thanks
Paul 

      -----Original Message-----
      From: Liddy Nevile [mailto:liddy@sunriseresearch.org] 
      Sent: 10 February 2006 23:36
      To: Paul Walsh, Segala
      Cc: public-xg-wcl@w3.org
      Subject: 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 Saturday, 11 February 2006 00:23:14 UTC