conformance issues

Working on Conformance.  Here is a summary of the issues.

 

New section coming soon.  

Gregg

 

 

 

 

Mon Mar 6 23:53:40 CST 2006

  _____  

47 issues found. 



ID      Summary 


476 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=476>     suggested
improvements to conformance section 


- Make sure it is clear that test suites don't guarantee conformance or lack
of it


1290 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1290>  Cumulative
Conformance Policy, Description, and Labeling ... 


- Big long list - all done except SEPARATE LOGO FOR EACH CONF LEVEL A,AA,AAA


1324 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1324>  Remove
Baseline Technology , or limit Baseline Technology... 


-"Don't use baselines" - need to be sure to have good BASELINE doc


1328 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1328>  Use UAAG1
as a Springboard 


- advice when CHOOSING A REASONABLE BASELINE


1361 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1361>  Level of
conformance seem very complicated 

- - Level of conformance being claimed
Is this section really necessary? Is it not too detailed? It does not seem
very clear to me - again very complicated.  'authored unit is defined as
"Some set of material created as a single entity by an author." What is a
single entity in web terms? A paragraph? A page? A set of pages? Should this
set of material be restricted to one author?

1362 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1362>  Scope of
conformance claims redundant? 

Scoping of Conformance Claims
Has this not already been covered in 'Conformance claims'? Should the set of
URIs should not cover this?

1437 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1437>  Supports
repair techniques to accommodate current user ag... 

It's a problem that no single user agent meets all of the UAAG 1.0 priority
1 checkpoints but I believe in a set of "repair techniques" that, as you
say, could be used by content authors who would like to create content that
not only meets WCAG 2.0, but that also makes up for the shortfall in current
user agents

1444 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1444>  Don't use
HTTP header for conformance information 

Wim Vanderbauwhede says:
The Section on Conformance Claims of the November draft of WCAG  2.0
contains the following Editorial Note:
"A question has been raised as to whether the information required in items
1-3 above should all be transmitted in the HTTP header or in some other
way."
The HTTP protocol is used for the transfer of a wide variety of content
types. It would therefore not be appropriate to include HTML-specific fields
in the HTTP header. Furthermore, this would require an extension of the HTTP
protocol specification. It would make more sense to add a field to the HTML
header.

CLOSE  with:  Comment Removed - will not be requiring information in HTTP
header


1555 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1555>  Responses
to "how many levels of conformance" issue/summary 


All discussion on whether to have  2 or 3 levels of conformance. 


1556 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1556>  Responses
to "baseline" issue/summary 


Comments of Support for Baseline


1560 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1560>  Editorial
Notes in Conformance Section 


1) Use HTTP header or metadata to make claims

 

12)  <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1573> it is
difficult to imagine how GL 3.1 could ever be assured for community
contributed content even if the tool to create the community contributed
content conforms to ATAG. It would be better to allow delivery units to
exclude such authored units.

1573 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1573>  Reliance on
User Agent support is risky; provide repair t... 


Don't rely on user agents to be good.  Include repair techniques. 


1574 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1574>  "Target
Users" should be better defined. 


Use 3 levels.   Define target users


1575 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1575>  Conformance
scheme too difficult to understand 


Make your conformance scheme and SC simpler


1590 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1590>  clarify
when it's acceptable for content's default presen... 


It should be ok if default doesnt meet if you can adjust it to meet.

CLOSE with - SC have ability to turn off or adjust built into them rather
than conformance. 


1598 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1598>  3 levels of
success criteria 


Explain that not all are 3 levels


1623 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1623>  3 Levels of
conformance


Comment - people will think these 3 levels are same as WCAG 1 


1630 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1630>  Intranet
example of 4.2 needs rewording 


Transferred to 4.2


1702 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1702>  Date when
conformance claims were made should be required 


Include DATE in conformance claim


1723 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1723>  Baseline
section is convoluted and confusing 


Need Baseline WhitePaper

Need guidance on how to make good baseline


1724 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1724>  Conformance
claims should include baseline definition 


Need baseline in conformance claim

CLOSE with - Baseline is in conformance claim now. 


1725 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1725>  Comments
about use of UAAG as baseline 


How do you know if user agent is conformant?

CLOSE with - You don't know anything about the user agent of a person.
Therefore these standards make certain assumptions about user agents - but
most of those assumptions will be made by those who set the baseline
technologies. 


1726 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1726>  Indicate
that baseline information is not yet available i... 


Intro says techniques include baseline info - but it isn't there


1727 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1727>  WCAG
guidelines should not specify what should or should ... 

we don't think WAI should appear to be dictating what public policy makers
should or shouldn't include in their work. Make the best recommendations you
can and let others decide how to use it. You are preparing guidelines... not
policy.

1728 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1728>  Scoping
allows sites to scope out all multimedia 

Scoping is a very scary concept. With scoping it is possible to scope out
all the multimedia (e.g. training packages) that are critical to users and
claim full conformance with the rest of the site even though the rest of the
site is not much use without the multimedia. Scoping should be handled very
carefully.

1758 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1758>  Define
Level 1 as "minimum necessary and sufficient condi... 


Comment about how to define level 1 and 2 so WG has less discretion.  

CLOSE - level descriptions are descriptive - not prescriptive. 


1759 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1759>  Clearer
statement needed about baselines 


Lots of different comments and advice about baselines  and BASELINE WRITEUP-



1760 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1760>  AAA
conformance 


Group the items for AAA conformance 


1761 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1761>  Issues with
"delivery unit" 


Is delivery unit the right term?   Something less confusing? 


1762 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1762>  "Should be
testable" vs "are testable"

Conformance: "The working group believes that all success criteria should be

testable".
 CHANGE  "SHOULD BE' to ARE TESTABLE 

1763 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1763>  Software
for download should be covered by guidelines 


Don't exclude downloaded software


1764 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1764>  Conformance
claims for content aggregators 


Advice on how to handle Aggregated Content 


1778 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1778>  Are fully
conformant user agents required? 


Wcag is useless if it requires user agents that conform.


1786 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1786>  Suggest
using EARL for conformance claims 

conformance section should refer to the possibility of using EARL to
provide machine-readable conformance claims.

1787 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1787>  Don't base
conformance on use of ATAG tools 


Preposterous to do this since ATAG doesn't force conformance


1799 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1799>  Meaning of
conformance levels 


Complaints about how we define the three levels


1811 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1811>  Determining
appropriate baseline may be too burdensome fo... 


Baselines may make WCAG useless - and 508 will become the standard


1823 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1823>  Note that
some GL have no level 3 SC 

Note: Some guidelines do not contain level 1 success criteria, and others do
not contain level 2 success 
criteria.
>>Not all contain level 3 success criteria either - I would add this to the
sentence

1840 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1840>  Conformance
levels should not depend on how accessibility is achieved 

The document might explain (not part of SC definition) that accessibility
can be attained through:
  a. markup, scripting, or other technologies that interact with or enable
access through user agents, including assistive technologies

  b. the design of the content and presentation


1855 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1855>  baseline
and conformance not well explained 


Many terms are not clearly defined.   Baseline, terms form Dev Indep


1860 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1860>  conformance
levels aren't based on improvements to access... 

 Feels that SC are at levels based on machine testability rather than user
need. 

1865 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1865>  interaction
of content negotiation and baseline 

Regarding the statement, "If multiple representations can be retrieved from
a URI through content negotiation, then the conformance claim would be for
the delivery unit that is returned when no negotiation is conducted ...." it
would seem that the results of the content negotiation might be dependent
upon the baseline. If I understand what is meant by content negotiation, it
could include, for example, browser identification. So if the baseline on an
intranet, say, used Safari, and the delivery unit was set up to provide
highly conformant content when the browser identified itself as Safari and a
lesser conformance level when it did not, then the optimal level of
conformance would be achieved on baselined workstations. But this process
would appear to involve content negotiation. Clearly you would want to make
a conformance claim based on your 99% of workstations that were baselined,
rather than on a few oddball workstations attached to the network to meet
special requirements.

1868 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1868>  A, Double-A
and Triple-A, not A, AA, and AAA 

4 examples should read: Level A, Double-A or Triple-A instead of: Level A,
AA or AAA and should be consistent throughout

1869 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1869>  target
audience requirements that conflict with univeral ... 


DON'T include target audience in conformance claim 


1870 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1870>  conformance
claim examples list SC level instead of confo... 

In this section and <http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag20-baseline>, the
success criterion are stated (E.g. ..conforms to W3C's WCAG 2.0, Conformance
Level 1..) instead of the conformance requirement (E.g. Level A, Double-A or
Triple-A).

1871 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1871>  example of
scoped conformance claim 

The section headed "Conformance claims" handily gives three text examples of
such claims. It would be 
useful to see at least one example of a "scoped" conformance claim.

1872 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1872>  What if SC
are not applicable? 


State EXPLICITLY that you pass if not relevant - (e.g  1.2 if you have no
multimedia)

 


Gregg

------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848  
For a list of our list discussions http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/

The Player for my DSS sound file is at http://tinyurl.com/dho6b 

 <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>