Hi Paul,
Yes, I know the Segala extension <smile>.
I was looking in the "tripes" of the extension and it seems that the
extension look for "labels" [1] But these labels can be about a lot of
things, not exactly about accessibility. For example, if you use the
extension and search for "self-labelled sites" the ICRA site is selflabeled,
but the label is about the type of contents, not about the accessibility of
these contents.
Am I wrong? Can you explain what's look for the extension?
Long time ago there where a discussion about the way to LINK to a rdf report
about accessibility and, I remember, and we suggest and use it, that the
proposition was:
<link rel="accessibility"
href="http://www.sidar.org/informes/rdf/sidar1.rdf" title="Informe del grado
de cumplimiento de las directrices de accesibilidad." />
Maybe this is wrong and we need do it as you link your segala label:
<link rel="meta"
href="http://www.segala.com/labels/tomrafteryit_label_001.rdf"
type="application/rdf+xml" title="Segala web accessibility label for
www.tomrafteryIT.net" />
I think that we need an agreement or guidelines about it. ¿What is the best
or what must be the way to link to an accessibility report?.
The contenlabel.org looks interesting. I think that the 3 party
certification can be good, but the problem is that in Spain there are some
enterprises and institutions labelling not so accessibles resources :-( And
I think that the auto-certification can be so good as the 3 party
ceretification.
We are working in a social-network system for the trust in the accessibility
review.
There are a lot of things to talk about ;-)
Emmanuelle
-----Mensaje original-----
De: DCMI Accessibility Community [mailto:[log in to unmask]] En
nombre de Paul Walsh, Segala
Enviado el: miércoles, 07 de febrero de 2007 1:35
Para: [log in to unmask]
Asunto: Re: Not accessible or not adaptable.
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
|