RE: Draft ERT WG Charter for review and comment

> ...would be better served with an 
> actual application that evaluated/repaired/described a 
> Web "document" in the same vein as is done by the 
>HTML validator and Tidy.
> 
We've been working to a software program that does just that:
http://checker.atrc.utoronto.ca

It is open source and runs on an Apache Tomcat server.

It uses an open standard of accessibility checks and tests for WCAG 1, WCAG 2, 
508, German BITV and more.

Is this what you were thinking of?

Chris



Quoting William Loughborough <love26@gorge.net>:

> At 10:07 AM 6/7/2004, Shadi Abou-Zahra wrote:
> >clarify a little more what you mean,
> 
> Most WAI (and W3C for that matter) activities produce documents that fall 
> under the heading of "recommendations" which are sort of guideline-based 
> "standards" describing what/how to do. I think that what needs doing in 
> this area (Evaluation/Repair/Descripton) would be better served with an 
> actual application that evaluated/repaired/described a Web "document" in 
> the same vein as is done by the HTML validator and Tidy.
> 
> This requires a different mindset on the part of the participants as well 
> as different sorts of participants - more programmers, less essayists.
> 
> Originally EARL was proposed by the late/lamented Len Kasday to make it 
> possible for Web authors to make claims about what features concerning 
> accessibility were contained in their efforts and nothing much has been 
> done since. It's not a trivial undertaking but is probably necessary so 
> that there is at least a semblance of objectivity of providing 
> accessibility and device independence by using a utility that assists in 
> the Web entity creation process.
> 
> This is easier said than done, but I think we need to try with that outcome
> 
> in mind.
> 
> --
> Love.
> 
> Everyone/everything/everywhere/always connected 
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2004 06:20:18 UTC