Proposals re: ATAG2 claims

Hi all,

I haven't heard any objections to my thoughts from Tuesday so I will turn them into proposals for discussion on Monday: 

1. "ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claims" can only should be limited to entities that own the IP of the authoring tool or who possess permission to modify and distribute the authoring tool. This wording is meant to include original developers as well as entities that improve on open source code to make something new etc.
Ed.
- Other interested parties can of course use the freely available resources on the AUWG site to do their own accessibility reviews or to check the accuracy of formal conformance claims.


2. "ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claims" must be available at a public URI.
Ed.
- It helps vendors by preventing cheating by unscrupulous vendors at the expense of honest ones
- It helps end users research products
- It is in line with W3C's general policies of openness
- And it could help us find a solution to our collection of tools issue (see next bullet).


3. The ability to have a "collection of tools" will be tightened as follows:
- Part A is always evaluated on a tool-by-tool basis (I think is true, though it does risk splitting Parts A and B apart).
- Part B can be evaluated on a collection of tools basis (primarily this is because some tools need/want to make use of external checking services)
- AND for a collection to be eligible, all of the tools in the collection:
 + must be eligible for a claim by the Claimant (as discussed in #1) or
 + have a pre-existing public claim that the Claimant can link to as per #2 (e.g. a checking service would create its own claim that authoring tools would then point to for that part)

Cheers,
Jan

Received on Friday, 28 October 2011 15:39:22 UTC