- From: SHARPE, Ian <Ian.SHARPE@cambridge.sema.slb.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 12:03:53 +0100
- To: "'Liddy Nevile'" <Liddy.Nevile@motile.net>, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
I hear the words of causion expressed by others and these cannot simply be dismissed. Indeed, how would you "categorise" a portal site which allows the user to customize their "view" from a number of sources? Each source could be "categorised" differently, some very accessible, some not so accessible? You also could simply have a static page which is perfectly usable but contains inaccessible but superfluous flash content. I think we all tend to have a go to try to sue a site and even if we can't use it properly it is still possible to get something out of it. I there is an argument on this basis for just having 2 different value for the metadata, completely inaccessible and "suck it and see". I don't feel these problems are insummountable however, and feel more positive towards this approach. What information should be contained in your profile? This should contain any access technology installed, browser configuration (eg colours/font sizes, user stylesheet in use), OS display/screen configuration, and user preferences. This could be created by any or all of the browser, access technology, manually by the user or even the OS. A simple text file (XML) could easily be maintained for this purpose. Since there is no personal information I can't see any problems with storage or abuse of civil liberties. This actually tells you nothing about the user themself, simply how the system is configured. Could be anyone using it. So it could be stored anywhere, smart card (but issues if you move to a different machine?), on the web (as per smart card but perhaps more easily maintained), but probably on the machine itself. As the use of XML/XHTML becomes more wide-spread I can see large organisations farming out work to provide accessible stylesheets which could be used by "intelligent" web servers to transform content based on this profile and metadata provided again by third parties (as was suggested ealrier) appropriately. The burden on large organisations to make accesible content (which I would argue isn't actually that much anyway under the right conditions) could actually be reduced and left to experts in this field. The use of meta tags for this purpose could be included in the guidelines and even used to possibly promete the above desing model as best practice? As government policy throughout the world adopt similar approaches to the US, rather than "gettosing" accessible sites I this "categorisation" could actually do the opposite. It could almost become a kind of kyte mark and a sign of quality. All users prefer to use clear and clean sites and would use them in preferrence to cluttered and unclear content. As technology improves web design tools could actually add the metatags themselves? OK, so I've stopped dreaming now and woken up. Life isn't quite that simple but I like the idea and feel that it does have potential. Cheers Ian -----Original Message----- From: Liddy Nevile [mailto:Liddy.Nevile@motile.net] Sent: 15 September 2002 00:14 To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org Subject: Re: DC2002 and Accessibility Metadata Perhaps it is worth a few examples. In Australia, we have a large education program that is developing resources for distribution on line. All of these must be certified to meet certain standards of accessibility. This metadata will be used to monitor the accessibility of all resources and changes to the resources will be checked to ensure the resource does not become inaccessible through changes. The IMS Global Project has produced guidelines for accessibility and descriptions of users needs that will be encoded in metadata. Those implementing the IMS system will be matching users with resources, and expect to rely on the metadata, right down to the level of items in online testing activities. In Canada, bank users are issued with smart cards that contain their needs as users. These can be used to transform the ATM's output so that it is accessible for the user. Technology on does so much however. It is still the case that some of the evaluation has to be done by humans, and this is why it is so important that the metadata proposed for accessibility contains the identity of the person (or agent) asserting the level of accessibility or accessibility standards compliance of the resource. Note: the latter is much easier than the former but that is why we are anxious to get to work on this. Liddy _________________________________________________________ This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of SchlumbergerSema. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please notify the SchlumbergerSema Helpdesk by telephone on +44 (0) 121 627 5600. _________________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 16 September 2002 07:21:10 UTC