- From: Jonathan Chetwynd <signbrowser@signbrowser.free-online.co.uk>
- Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1999 18:43:22 -0000
- To: "Jonathan Chetwynd" <jonathan@peepo.com>, "Al Gilman" <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
- Cc: <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>This is some research I have wanted to do an have not done. Would you be >willing to post a web page somewhere with search URLs representing the best >you have found? I have only been on the www 6 months so do not expect too much. I would certainly be interested in links to interactive sites with little or no text, please send them to me. Links to interactive sites with little or no text: http://www.peepo.com ~40 links Our Science Museum Visit in a few words and sounds: http://www.peepo.com/signbrowser/lspacegallery.htm Our Horniman Visit, the students' thoughts written by them: http://www.peepo.com/signbrowser/horniman Search by subject using symbols: http://www.peepo.com/signbrowser/signbrowser_gifs.htm > >>Why is their not a search engine that uses personal Qualia to refine the >>search? > >I would be inclined to suspect that it is a combination of performance and >understanding issues. The kind of query language that you or I might put >together could have to be interpreted against each page visited by the >spider. That would not be an acceptable performance burden. But if we can >demonstrate in an interpretive environment that certain qualia are >effective in finding the "good sites" for a given user interface mode, >then we can look at how to formulate affordable statistics that could be >incorporated in the indexing and would be nearly as effective as the >rifle-shot qualia tailored exactly to the user need. A word count is ~ no extra work for a spider. >unfortunately due to the nature of HTML it is a little more than~0<. ie finding the words, rather than counting them. >The W3C is in the process of organizing a "Web assessment" activity, and >the WAI has an opportunity to influence the shape this activity takes. >This is of interest at least to the EO group because they want to >understand our audience for outreach, and the Evaluation and Repair group >because what you are talking about are evaluation techniques. I have subscribed thanks for the nod. >WAI-ER gives you a chance that some of your ideas for "Qualia" may be >supported by programming by others. Please consider airing your ideas >further in the ER Interest Group. > To be sure once I have seen a little of what goes on I shall. jonathan
Received on Sunday, 3 January 1999 13:44:45 UTC