Paul
I rate 'trust' highly and am sure it is often 'earned' by
organisations and people then can feel, or do, feel secure. I just
hope we have lots of organisations doing descriptions so there is a
lot of good metadata about.
Liddy
On 31/05/2006, at 6:12 PM, Paul Walsh, Segala wrote:
>
> I agree Liddy.
>
> I also feel that some users *may* trust resources that have been
> verified by
> an independent third party, 'self-labelled' sites are not trusted by
> everyone all of the time. Similar to what you said; trust is like
> beauty;
> it's in the eye of the beholder - you should see my slide for this
> statement
> ;)
>
> Search engines and browsers *may* want to make use of trusted
> metadata.
> Segala is co-editor of the MWI mobileOK document with Google and
> ICRA -
> there is a use case for metadata that has been verified by an
> independent
> 'certification provider'. Users will make up their own minds as to
> whether
> they trust CAs over self-labelled sites. The idea is to support
> both and not
> mandate either.
>
> Let's not beat the CAs who have built trust slowly within their
> communities
> - I know this wasn't/isn't intended.
>
> Paul
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCMI Accessibility Group
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Liddy
> Nevile
> Sent: 27 May 2006 08:08
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 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
>
|