Re: PICS and accessibility

I'd like to second Joshs' note that this discussion better suits the
PICS-WG and Libby Neville. 

Having said that, I'll voice my meager opinion anyway...There is a
fundamental question, perhaps two or three that really need to be answered
in light web usage and PICS:

1. Why? What *real* purpose would it serve? What is goal are we really
trying to achieve?
2. What is the inherent benefit of PICS in light of accessibility -- a tool
or a rating system?
3. Are there other alternatives?

(Actually, that's 5 questions, isn't it...)

I've thought about this lately, particularly as a result of the discussion
thread. I am not convinced that a PICS based service will really do
anything as a certification or rating system -- unless perhaps someone is
in the business of certifying or rating web sites. Seems to me that those
services died a long time ago. Fewer and fewer sites included the Magellen
or Top 5% logo's anymore. Perhaps those in the writing business would see
similar value....but I doubt anyone else, particularly from a business
standpoint would.

Rather I see it's intrinsic value as an accessibility tool. Something that
can be developed concurrent with imbedded authoring tool accessibility
wizards and functionality. It would help those of us who are in the
business of helping others make their sites accessible. I realize that this
is less proactive in nature...but I think it's the more practical approach. 

For example, at every workshop/seminar I conduct, webmasters and site
administrators always ask me the same two questions: What authoring tools
support accessible design and what applications/utilities can be used to
expedite the process of improving web site accessibility. Everyone seems
eager to do it...they just want access to the tools to automate the process
more.

With that in mind, one would question whether the current functionality of
PICS is really valuable to accessibility. Accessible content isn't about
the kind of content (i.e., pornography) but rather how that content is
constructed in order to view it (or render it in an alternative format). As
I noted above, what is it that we want to really achieve? It's not the
words...it's the ability to read those words. Right?

- Mike



At 08:36 AM 1/21/98 -0500, Josh Krieger wrote:
>Other than a boolean rating like, i.e. "this site does/does not 
>contain pornography," it is extremely difficult to devise a rating 
>system in which two people answer the same way, and probably even
>more so with accessibility since there are so many different
>definitions of it. I suspect that if we are to try and create a 
>PICS based accessibility rating system, it needs to encompass both a 
>human judgement of accessibility AND an automated judgement of 
>accessibility. Does anyone know of examples where people 
>have actually created a PICS rating system and applied it
>by automated or human methods to rating large numbers of sites?
>I wonder what some of the experiences are.
>
>As far as restricting access by an automated tool, that's what search
>engines do.
>
>BTW, This is a good discussion for the ratings and certification
>group. 
>
>+ Josh +
>
>Mike Burks wrote:
>> 
>> I don t think that any automated tool alone can make that kind of
judgement.
>> Anything that restricts the flow of information is pernicious as far as
I am
>> concerned.  To me the first level of accessibility is being able to get to
>> the site...if the tool says NOPE this site is not accessible, does that
mean
>> that valuable information is not there?
>> 
>> Anything that automatically restricts access to information chills me to my
>> soul.  The expostulations that I am being paranoid do not comfort me in the
>> least.  The weight of historical evidence supports the conclusion that
>> censorship in any form is not a good thing.
>> 
>> Sincerely
>> Mike Burks
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU>
>> To: WAI Interest Group <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>> Date: Tuesday, January 20, 1998 1:23 AM
>> Subject: PICS and accessibility
>> 
>> >It may be of interest, given that PICS is under discussion, to note that
>> >there has been some consideration of its use as a means of labeling web
>> >sites with respect to their degree of accessibility to people with
>> >disabilities. How useful do members of this group think that such labels,
>> >particularly if they were made by a party other than the creator of the
>> >site, would be to people with disabilities? Would it be helpful to have
>> >the option of restricting search engines or other tools just to sites
>> >which possess a high accessibility rating? What other applications of PICS
>> >content labels would be useful in the area of accessibility? Should the
>> >WAI develop a PICS labeling system with which web sites could be
>> >classified?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>

-------------------------
Michael G. Paciello                      Executive Director, 
E-Mail: mailto:paciello@yuri.org         Yuri Rubinsky Insight Foundation
Tel: +1 603 598 9544                     URL: http://www.yuri.org/
FAX: +1 603 598 2839                     Promoting Accessibility Awareness!

Please Make a Tax-Deductible Donation:   http://www.yuri.org/donate.html
Charitable Registration Number (8867 - 3639 - RR0001)

Received on Wednesday, 21 January 1998 09:36:31 UTC