from Jutta Treviranus:
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 14:15:32 -0400
To: DCMI Accessibility Group <[log in to unmask]>
From: Jutta Treviranus <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: Getting my head round the proposals...
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-CCLRC-SPAM-report: -4.9 : BAYES_00
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.38
Just to clarify. The way the ACCLIP and ACCMD works is to match an individual's preferences and
needs with a resource or set of resources that meet those needs and preferences. For this reason
the relevant question is not does this comply with WCAG but does this resource meet the needs of
this individual. A resource that is only WCAG compliant in the specific way in which the individual in
question needs it to be compliant is a usable resource.
The way the ACCMD is structured, the EARL statements required to describe the resource do not
need to answer whether a resource is compliant with any accessibility specification or guideline but
whether for each resource or component thereof:
a) the display can be transformed, ie. is the presentation independent of the content and structure,
and
b) the resource can be controlled using only a keyboard or keyboard emulator.
The set of checks to determine this can be a subset of WCAG 1.0 or 2.0 or can be a separate set of
checks. We have created proposed sub sets of WCAG 1.0 and 2.0 checks and are working on a set of
checks that are created specifically to respond to these two questions for a range of technologies.
Jutta
At 6:19 PM +0100 10/19/04, Andy Heath wrote:
I may be wrong but my understanding is that there are
proposals in the xhtml group about the way DC can be
incorporated within pages but that the detail is not
standardised yet. If this is correct then that will
provide a model that not only dc can relate to but
people using LOM as well - if we can keep these efforts
in step there will be just *one* way to do this, a fact
that will benefit everyone. To answer Chaals's "wots
the staus" the IMS work *does* have pointers to two
kinds of EARL statement (two different uses).
I refer you to the ACCMD spec on
http://www.imsglobal.org/accessibility
Cheers
andy heath
I think that sorting out that question is the primary work facing the
group at the moment (this is my personal understanding from the Usage
Board meeting).
Personally, I would say yes - you should point to an EARL report. And that
EARL report should be a detailed desciption - going at least to the level
of detail of individual WCAG checkpoints, and probably further. It should
also deal with the kind of info that IMS LIP works on - although I am not
clear about the status of their stuff in RDF, which is what EARL requires.
It should be easy enough to make something up, but it would be nicer if
there was something standardised by them because it makes it easier to use
interoperably.
cheers
Chaals
--
Charles McCathieNevile [log in to unmask]
http://www.sidar.org
<quote who="Matthew Smith">
Hi
Having read through the summary information at
<http://dublincore.org/groups/access> I'd like to make sure that I'm
understanding things right.
My primary interest, at this stage, is embedding metadata in a page that
indicates how accessible the page is (or isn't).
For this, am I correct in thinking that the metadata in question would be
a
pointer to an EARL document?
Cheers
M
|
