- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 17:14:37 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@reef.com>
- cc: Joe Clark <joeclark@qube.seeto.com>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
This is a pretty good summary of what EARL does. Indeed it does allow for different people to make statements which can be identified, and therefore to balance information against "whom you trust". (For instance you might say that in the absence of any other information you will accept what I have written, but if anyone disagrees with me you believe them instead) Another important use case is that you may have several sources of EARL information about a document you are editing, and how it conforms to WCAG level-A and the US federal government "section 508" purchasing requirements. (These are two slightly diffferent sets of requirements). An EARL-aware authoring tool would be able to take account of the information you have previously supplied. For example, there are four images, and it is noted in EARL that three of them don't need long descriptions, but that one does. You would then be prompted for a long description only for the one that needed it, instead of getting asked every time you run a check. something like EARL is already in use in several accessibility checking systems - the value of having a single syntax is that the final use case outlined above, as well as Kynn's final use case, becomes possible. cheers Charles McCN On Tue, 29 May 2001, Kynn Bartlett wrote: At 09:05 AM 5/29/2001, Joe Clark wrote: >Um... WTF is EARL, OK? It's a language for making statements about the accessibility of something, in a standard machine-readable (and human-displayable) way. For example: * I could run a program like Bobby or the W3C validator, and get back a report in EARL which records those things Bobby or the validator can measure. * I could sit down and test a site, and record my results in a format that gets changed into EARL (maybe by a script prompting me for answers). * I could use a nifty new editor which, on demand, generates an EARL statement about the code it is creating for me. * I could then combine all of the above EARL statements into a composite and see how the site measures up against various W3C specifications, such as WCAG or XHTML. Failures to comply could also be noted in EARL as well. EARL is "just" a common language and syntax for expressing things that we current talk about in English, such as "this page is single-A accessible and it includes D-links" or "this fails checkpoint 2.1" or "alt text exists, but William Loughborough doesn't think they're adequate." (The last one is not a tongue-and-cheek joke; EARL, as I understand it, does indeed allow for value judgments and identification of who made those calls.) -- Charles McCathieNevile http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 134 136 W3C Web Accessibility Initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI fax: +1 617 258 5999 Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia (or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, France)
Received on Tuesday, 29 May 2001 17:14:42 UTC