yes - I was expecting the EARL to all be 'under the hood' ie not hand  
written and not visible to the user who is not interested in code...

Liddy


On 08/02/2007, at 11:12 AM, Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo wrote:

>
> Hi all,
>
> Liddy: I agree with you.
>
> Paul: Maybe you are thinking in a person writing EARL reports by  
> hand. But
> you don't need do this. There are some tools for the accessibility  
> review
> that do it for you. For example, HERA [1] and you can use it for  
> your Segala
> reports (you can install it in your server and personalize reports).
>
> And yes, the market need to be educate, and I think that for this  
> end, our
> new social-network trust system will do it <smile>.
>
> About the labelling agencies... I'm interested in take in account  
> any "trust
> label" about accessibility conform. So, please, let me know what is  
> or what
> are the adequate label to include in our tool.
>
> All the bes,
> Emmanuelle
>
> [1] www.sidar.org/hera/
>
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: DCMI Accessibility Community [mailto:DC- 
> [log in to unmask]] En
> nombre de Paul Walsh, Segala
> Enviado el: miércoles, 07 de febrero de 2007 23:42
> Para: [log in to unmask]
> Asunto: Re: Not accessible or not adaptable.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DCMI Accessibility Community [mailto:DC- 
> [log in to unmask]]
> On Behalf Of Liddy Nevile
>
>
> Emmanuelle
> on the side of trust, I think we all agree. We are very familiar with
> incorrect claims of accessibility, esp from contractors who are  
> paid to do
> evaluations of content. This is one reason that we are suggesting  
> that the
> metadata should not only be in RDF but that it is best if is  
> complies with
> EARL so that we know who made it and when.
>
>
> [PW] I love EARL. However, I wouldn't like to see it mandated or  
> we'll end
> up with fewer adoptions overall. Heads of 'testing' are direct  
> customers for
> EARL. The vast majority of Test Managers in the industry won't know  
> anything
> about EARL, nor are they likely to implement it any time soon (I'm  
> talking
> years for most). I'm from this background with 12 years worth of  
> contacts
> within the space specifically. It's already difficult to get buy in  
> from
> companies for the implementation of testing tools such as Rational,  
> Mercury,
> Bugzilla (even when free) etc. Segala could adopt and will adopt  
> EARL, but
> the industry won't benefit if there are too few implementations.  
> So, great
> for Segala, but not great for mass adoption. Actually that's not  
> great for
> Segala because you need lots of competition or we'll spend most of  
> our time
> educating our market.
>
> Furthermore, you don't need EARL to state who's making the claims  
> and when.
> Although, I'm think along the lines of Content Labels in the format  
> as we
> know them. For me, Conformance claims are best made using Labels.  
> EARL is
> best used for recording how you came to make such claims - what you  
> tested,
> when, how etc.
>
> But there is another way labeling can help, I think. We can work with
> labeling agencies we trust - and IMHO that is a very simple and  
> human way to
> work for trust.
>
> [PW] I agree. Some people will trust VeriSign for security and  
> others won't
> :)
>
> My view is quite unqualified in comparison to this group with  
> respect to its
> metadata and how it should be used. So please accept my apology for  
> giving
> my opinion about EARL. Again, I fully support EARL.
>
> Sorry if I've gone over old ground that you've covered over and  
> over. Please
> don't feel obliged to respond. My team will take a proper look and  
> help me
> to make a more informed opinion :)
>
> Thanks
> Paul