W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 2001

EARL pointers

From: Harvey Bingham <hbingham@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2001 16:19:20 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
The evaluations we've been doing in UA are a good candidate for use
of the ER group's EARL.

See: EARL: Evaluation and Report Language section on


 From EARL Intro and FAQ,


'EARL is a notation for recording and sharing evaluations. In particular,
it allows one to make claims/criticisms/judgements concerning characteristics
of resources, e.g. whether a document or tool conforms to certain criteria.

EARL is non constraining in the range of things that can be evaluated; a
lot like the proverbial "soap box" from which one is free to speak one's
mind without any prior approval from a central authority. It does however
provide a vocabulary to facilitate scoped reports.

In general, an EARL evaluation consists of a context, and then an assertion
which consists of the thing being evaluated, the conformance criteria, and
the validity status.

Evaluation ::= quad (
       under what other conditions -- computing environment, human
              exercising judgement, ad lib.
       what was evaluated -- any referencable scope of resource
       against what criteria -- published or re-usable assessment instrument
              as applicable
       with what conclusion -- outcome, consistent with the conventions of

For example, contextual information may include information such as creator
details, platform, and so on. The thing being evaluated could be a Web page,
or a tool. The conformance criteria could be something like a WCAG checkpoint
or a syntax rule in a schema, and the validity status could be something as
simple as "pass or fail" or something more granular with, for example, a
certain level of confidence.'


Regards/Harvey Bingham
Received on Thursday, 4 October 2001 16:57:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:38:32 UTC