Coupled with this, you could install our Firefox extension [1] that reads
Content Labels. 

Users can see which sites claim conformance to accessibility guidelines in
search results. That is, you don't have to enter a Web site to see if it's
accessible, or making claims about accessibility conformance.

We place a little colour coded icon beside each search result. Red is for
'not labelled', amber is self-labelled and green is independently verified.
Clicking on the icon invokes a page with more information about the claims
being made. 

Users can filter search results if they want to only see independently
verified sites or self-labelled sites. That is, sites that claim conformance
to accessibility guidelines. It's our intention to add a preference page
which options that match real users. We thought we'd have to carry out tons
of research but it looks like this group has solved that problem! :-) So, we
just need to build profiles within Content Labels.

The really cool aspect is that Content Labels can be used to make claims
about a URI and not just a domain. So, we can encourage owners of large Web
sites, to embrace accessibility more easily by recognising that they don't
have to flip a switch at the end of a huge project.

All of this is why Segala permits certification for guidelines that reside
in some or all categories without the restriction of having to conform to a
specific category. However, industry is a little immature for this so we're
finalising a baseline conformance level. I think we would benefit greatly if
members of this group reviewed that baseline, so I'd love to hear from
anyone who wants to see it.

At present, our Content Label for accessibility is based on WCAG and Section
508. However, we can modify the label to suit whatever this group's
guidelines are. 

The extension is built by a company that's owned by a very good friend of
mine. They (Glaxstar) are responsible for maintaining spreadfirefox.com and
have built the main extensions for companies such as Google, Yahoo! PayPal
and eBay - so it's not just another extension and can be trusted. 

We intend to release monthly builds as soon as we put a roadmap together.
Having said that, I'd love to hear what users in this group think! This
group has basically come up with exactly what the industry needs for better
adoption of accessibility.

Further to this, http://contentlabel.org will be used to encourage industry
to create more codes of conduct. This in turn will encourage more sites to
be labelled for more reasons. 

Lastly, the partner programme we are building are enabled to audit and
certify sites - i.e. label more sites. That is, more sites can be labelled
using this groups metadata.

I've CC'd David because he's a participant in ERT and Sorcha is a
participant in WCAG. Small world. They're both working on mobileOK too -
which comes in the form of a Content Label.

[1] http://searchthresher.com 

Job done :)

Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: DCMI Accessibility Community [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Liddy Nevile
Sent: 06 February 2007 23:47
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Not accessible or not adaptable.

Emmanuelle

As it is not ever clear that there is such a thing as an 'accessible'  
resource but that resources are accessible or otherwise to individual  
users, I would suggest that you write metadata on the resource,  
following the scheme we are developing for DC, and then individuals  
or later, computers, can match those resources to user's individual  
needs and preferences.
The metadata we are working on makes objective statements about the  
characteristics of the resource, not claims about accessibility or  
otherwise. We describe this as metadata related to the adaptability  
of a resource but do not say yes or no, rather declare the  
characteristics. Of course, we note what makes a difference in line  
with the W3C guidelines and other work.

For more info I suggest you see the DC page and then look at what is  
on the wiki where there is a lot more detail.

http://dublincore.org/groups/access/
http://dublincore.org/accessibilitywiki

In fact, we would love to see Sidar adapt HERO to produce RDF reports  
on the adaptability characteristics of resources in the future.

Liddy


On 07/02/2007, at 7:26 AM, Emmanuelle Gutiérrez y Restrepo wrote:

>
> Hi all,
>
> This group was working in how define the adaptability's resource.  
> But I need
> a way to declare / define that a resourse don't be and don't will be
> accessible or adaptable.
>
> For example, we have some resource to teach accessibility that  
> don't conform
> the WCAG. These are bad practice examples, and must be not  
> accessibles.
>
> How can I preserve its that a review or classification as "bad"  
> resources?
>
> Sorry if I can explain it properly, my English is very bad, but I  
> hope that
> someone can understand me and explain it to the others.
>
> Any idea?
>
> All the best,
> Emmanuelle

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.27/671 - Release Date: 05/02/2007
16:48