- From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
- Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 17:32:37 +0200
- To: "'Web Content Guidelines'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
my two cents: Meta data is the way to go, if people can not write meta data, a simple online form can be made to help the author it. (I will volunteer if necessary) Meta data allows for meta data searches, so that users can find the content that they can use.... But, different users have different requirements - if I am colorblind, I care about the perceivablity a lot more then if alt tags are filled in. So searchers and categorization should be supported at a checkpoint level, and even a known technique level In other words meta data should specified conformance at: * an overall level (as with EARL) * checkpoint level, * and at a known techniques level This is not so difficult - we just need a URI for each technique and checkpoint I am not suggesting that authors have to stipulate every checkpoint, however if some accessibility fetchers are supported beyond the overall conformance level of the page, the author should be _able_ to tell the audience who need it most. I do not know if EARL support this, but I could not find it. All the best, Lisa Seeman UnBounded Access Widen the World Web lisa@ubaccess.com <mailto:lisa@ubaccess.com> www.ubaccess.com <http://www.ubaccess.com/> Tel: +972 (2) 675-1233 Fax: +972 (2) 675-1195 -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jason White Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 2:36 AM To: Web Content Guidelines Subject: Re: WCAG conformance profiles (no plain text) Al Gilman writes: > > At 04:58 AM 2002-11-17, you wrote: > > >I think text and EARL should be the preferred methods of making > >claims. > > You should strike 'text' from that list. In its place a > literate-programming binding of the EARL model for ease of reading is very > strongly suggested in this case, or better yet three of these. While I agree with Al in principle, I would also expect resistance from those who aren't competent in the use of metadata, or who have the concerns of such authors in mind. As a result we will probably have to allow textual claims as is customary, though continuing to emphasize the advantages of Earl. A set of supplied Earl to XHTML/SVG etc., XSLT transformations would help to ease the transition, too.
Received on Tuesday, 19 November 2002 10:33:13 UTC