W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wai-evaltf@w3.org > January 2012

Re: 100% conformance for the pages sampled...

From: RichardWarren <richard.warren@userite.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 21:46:31 -0000
Message-ID: <CF009E262B5D4ABE9C217C548BE58D16@DaddyPC>
To: "Alistair Garrison" <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>, "Eval TF" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Dear Alistair and All,

Having just spent a fortune getting my son's car through its MOT I have to 
agree with Alistair 100%. Our task is to establish a methodology for 
evaluating website accessibility. If the evaluation identifies that the site 
fully meets the guidelines then a conformance claim can be made to that 
effect. Everyone will know exactly what that means.

If the site "almost" meets the guidelines then perhaps some other form of 
"compliance statement" can be made - BUT that is not our current problem. 
Maybe, once we have finished our methodology, we can recommend a new task 
force to look at variance in conformance claims <grin>.


-----Original Message----- 
From: Alistair Garrison
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 9:02 PM
To: Eval TF
Subject: 100% conformance for the pages sampled...

Dear All,

If I understood correctly from this afternoon's EVAL TF telecon - there was 
a suggestion that we should (at a minimum) require the representative sample 
pages to be in 100% conformance with WCAG 2.0 (at the chosen level) in order 
to say the site conforms (at that level).  If this was the case, I strongly 
agree with it (meant to write it in the IRC at the time).

In addition, I noted from some a worry about telling a website owner (a 
client, etc) that their website doesn't conform - especially when they might 
have tried hard to do so.  To my mind, worries of this kind should not deter 
us from asking for nothing less than 100% conformance (on any given sample). 
The person that does the MOT on my car has absolutely no worries about 
telling me about any failures, but possibly that's because everyone doing 
MOTs requires 100% conformance from a car for a pass.

Surely, we want people to try their absolute best to conform 100%.  We must 
encourage them to shoot for the stars (100% conformance) - some, of course, 
will initially only hit the moon, but they will at least know what is 
expected from them... Let's not, however, start to congratulate people for 
simply getting off the ground - that time must have passed long, long, long 

Anyway, look forward to seeing you all on the list.

Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:46:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:19 UTC