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

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

From: Kerstin Probiesch <k.probiesch@googlemail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:46:16 +0100
To: "'Eval TF'" <public-wai-evaltf@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4f1937c1.9c010e0a.6164.2acf@mx.google.com>
I also agree with 100%. We will reduce the margin of error in whole and it
will be valid against the conformance requirement 1: Conformance Level.

Best

Kerstin

Von: Elle [mailto:nethermind@gmail.com] 
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Januar 2012 22:53
An: RichardWarren
Cc: Alistair Garrison; Eval TF
Betreff: Re: 100% conformance for the pages sampled...

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 Friday, 20 January 2012 09:46:09 GMT

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