Thank you Liddy, this is hugly useful (As has been all the feedback on this)
My feeling is what ever issues you have hit, we would have to an even grater
extent because there would be about three people trying to do the work of a
team.
Thanks again,
Lisa
----- Original Message -----
From: "Liddy Nevile" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, May 27, 2006 9:07 AM
Subject: Re: certification program
> Sadly, I think we will not 'get it right' no matter what we do, but we
> should be very careful.
>
> 1. The 'test-the-tester' approach has to be flawed in exactly the same
> way as the simple 'test-the-resource' approach is flawed - either way it
> is just as easy to cheat.
>
> 2. We know from experience that people decide for themselves who and what
> to trust. It is very important to be able to say by whom, using what
> tests, and when something was tested.
>
> 3. It is also important to say exactly what was tested - the components
> of the resource, the resource as a composite object, this or that version
> or, if you like, which instantiation of the resource, etc..
>
> 4. We have enough research to show that testing does not and cannot
> guarantee accessibility to everyone.
>
> and, what is compelling for me,
>
> 5. any individual user only wants to know if the resource will be
> accessible to them at the time of delivery.
>
> We have recommended the AccessForAll approach in favour of generalised
> testing for certification because that way, the description of the
> resource is available for decision-making.
>
> This list, beyond all others, should have many on it who understand why
> we use metadata, and they should be able to contribute to how and why
> metadata is useful in this context. The credibility of the metadata is
> important but so is the content. Specific details are often needed for
> accessibility decision-making. If there are too few details, people who
> could use resources will miss out on them and if there is too much
> demanded, nobody will bother to supply it. These are the sorts of
> problems that have been at the heart of our work for the last few years.
>
> I'd like to think that we can do, as we have always tried to do, and
> combine the use of metadata to convey information ABOUT the resource,
> basing the statements that make up that metadata on the tests that W3C so
> carefully develops. In my humble opinion, this does not lead to a 'let's
> certify' approach so much as a 'let's describe' approach.
>
> Surely we want to empower the user to make the important decisions about
> what they can/will tolerate just as, when we choose a hard-to- get-into
> restaurant, we let our colleagues in wheel-chairs decide to join us or
> not: it should be their decision, not ours.
>
> Liddy
>
|