Hi Lisa,

[cite]
Then , if you go down this space, you have a third issue to represent - who
said they found it inaccessible, and how certain are we of this statement.
[end cite]

Yes! This is exactly in what we are working. In a first step based only in
the representation in EARL of the WCAG checkpoints. In a future, based in
the users needs and preferences according to the dc-accessibility ...
<smile>

Best regards,
Emmanuelle

-----Mensaje original-----
De: DCMI Accessibility Community [mailto:[log in to unmask]] En
nombre de lisa
Enviado el: jueves, 08 de febrero de 2007 10:03
Para: [log in to unmask]
Asunto: Re: Not accessible or not adaptable.

saying "this font is not expandable" is useful , but could be
programmatically determined anyway, as can a lot of clear cut violations.
What might be  more relevant is something has questionable accessibility,
such as an Alt tag that is filled in but does not have the same function as
the image. For example, and text equivalent  may read "tag line" were as the
image has the actual text of the tag line. This is a trivial example where
you have  an accessibility violation, but it is the kind of violation that
people  find harder to understand - it needs to be argued. A lot of
accessibility issues today are subtle, such as accessible but unusable.
(That is even before we go into the space of cognitive accessibility.)

Then , if you go down this space, you have a third issue to represent - who
said they found it inaccessible, and how certain are we of this statement. 

All the best
Lisa





-----Original Message-----
From: DCMI Accessibility Community [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Charles McCathieNevile
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:06 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Not accessible or not adaptable.

On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:04:43 +0530, Liddy Nevile <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:

> perhaps bear in mind, Charles, that we are not proposing a statement 
> of the type "x is accessible" or otherwise...but rather, "X has 
> variable font size" or "X is not controllable by keystrokes alone"

Sure. But even in that context, how do I say "X has fixed font-size and I
will do everything in my power to make sure X is an example of something
whose font-size cannot be varied, because I am deliberately trying to make
it bad", in a way that you can tell is different from "I don't know about
the font-size in X"?

(In EARL you could just say that it fails a particular requirement, but I am
not sure how that fits in here).

> Liddy
>
> On 08/02/2007, at 5:20 PM, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>
>>
>> On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 01:54:25 +0530, Liddy Nevile 
>> <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Emmanuelle
>>> have you been able to read the metadata terms we are working on - 
>>> theyreflect the specs in WCAG but in a metadata way and give much 
>>> moreflexibility ... there is a fairly comprehensive set and they are 
>>> aboutto become an ISO standard at least for education....
>>>
>>> The DC conformsTo etc simply did not give us enough useful 
>>> informationabout the resource..so we have added a few qualifiers and 
>>> one new term
>>
>> But the big question is whether you can state that something is not 
>> accessible (which is different from not stating that it is) - the use 
>> case is forexamples that are showing how not to do things.
>>
>> There is an issue if we use monotonic logic (which underpins the 
>> semantic web, a lot of the assumptions behind Dublin Core, and so 
>> on). Broadlyspeaking, a statement is expected to be true. If 
>> something is going to changestate, that is problematic, but there are 
>> ways around it.
>>
>> The reason for EARL's complexity is to provide a reasonable way of 
>> managing both trust, and changes in actual status fo the thing under 
>> discussion. If, instead of saying "foo is accessible" you say "fred 
>> says foo is accessible"then you don't make RDF and other monotonic 
>> systems crash if you add a statement "jo says foo is not accessible".
>> (RDF doesn't actually ahve a "not" but you can use OWL to explain 
>> that passing "isAnInaccessibleExample" cannot happen toanything that 
>> meets WCAG-A, for example. You can then define"isAnInaccessibleExample"
>> as test
>> for EARL and make statements about it.
>>
>> As I understand it, you could then use that approach for DC metadata.
>>
>> So, as far as I know, there is no direct way of saying something is 
>> inaccessible, but it is easy enough to define a slightly indirect 
>> one.
>>
>> If anyone has a better approach I would love to hear it...
>>
>> cheers
>>
>> Chaals
>>
>> --Charles McCathieNevile Fundacion Sidar [log in to unmask] +61 409
>> 134 136 http://www.sidar.org



--
Charles McCathieNevile Fundacion Sidar
[log in to unmask] +61 409 134 136 http://www.sidar.org