 |
 |
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