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

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

From: Elle <nethermind@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 16:53:17 -0500
Message-ID: <CAJ=fddOKzPJ8GZ7LBG-3827bCTOceg5xzGH==fRp-bPT6VtHEA@mail.gmail.com>
To: RichardWarren <richard.warren@userite.com>
Cc: Alistair Garrison <alistair.j.garrison@gmail.com>, Eval TF <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
I concur 100%. If we do not define conformance as 100% of those pages
tested, then we lose in setting the bar high enough for companies who are
only looking to achieve a minimum level of compliance. Most companies are
afraid to make public claims of compliance, anyway, due to web governance
issues and the exposure to litigation for making a false claim. I would
much rather have the goal be unmovable and strive to meet it than to give
up ground before this is even published.


On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:46 PM, RichardWarren

> 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>.
> Regards
> Richard
> -----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 ago.
> Anyway, look forward to seeing you all on the list.
> Alistair

If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the people to gather wood,
divide the work, and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast
and endless sea.
- Antoine De Saint-Exupéry, The Little Prince
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:53:45 UTC

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