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.

Cheers,
Elle



On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 4:46 PM, RichardWarren
<richard.warren@userite.com>wrote:

> 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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:52:13 GMT