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

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

From: Detlev Fischer <fischer@dias.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:57:39 +0100
Message-ID: <20120119225739.13412lpj8i4z3bv7@webmail.dias.de>
To: public-wai-evaltf@w3.org
Let's stop here and consider the implications.

Here and then, people in the EVAL TF have agreed that the 100%  
conformant site does not really exist 'out there'. Aren't we holding  
the bone a wee bit too high? I wonder what that will mean for the  
practical acceptance of the methodology. Will it come to be derided as  
academic, as impossibly demanding? Who then is the customer of a  
(sorry, chap) refused seal of conformance who bows to gracefully  
accept the list of flaws to rectify? Just wondering...it just strikes  
me as slightly surreal...

Detlev



Quoting RichardWarren <richard.warren@userite.com>:

> 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



--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Detlev Fischer PhD
DIAS GmbH - Daten, Informationssysteme und Analysen im Sozialen
Geschäftsführung: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp

Telefon: +49-40-43 18 75-25
Mobile: +49-157 7-170 73 84
Fax: +49-40-43 18 75-19
E-Mail: fischer@dias.de

Anschrift: Schulterblatt 36, D-20357 Hamburg
Amtsgericht Hamburg HRB 58 167
Geschäftsführer: Thomas Lilienthal, Michael Zapp
---------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2012 21:58:09 GMT

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