W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2001

Conformance

From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 18:55:19 +1000
Message-ID: <15288.12151.162319.717760@gargle.gargle.HOWL>
To: Web Content Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Here is my attempt to capture the issues associated with conformance.

The following consensus statements, from Gregg's list, are relevant:

C1 - we want to have recognition for accomplishment beyond baseline

C2 - it is good to have levels of conformance rather than just all or
nothing.

C3 - there is a minimum set that conformance should not be possible
without.

C4 - should not be able to claim conformance by disability

C5 - we WCAG should provide a way for people to see  impact of items for
particular disabilities but it should not be used for conformance.

C6 - GL should provide hooks in WCAG to allow someone to provide a way
for people to measure access against particular disabilities but it
should not be used for conformance.     [ Who should/would do the tool?
GL or EO or ?]   [Separate tool]

C7 -  The success criteria (for a checkpoint) must be sufficient.
(i.e. if you do them you comply.   You would not have to do anything not
in the list of success criteria.)

Outstanding issues:

a. On what basis is the "minimum set" of checkpoints required for
conformance, be defined?

b. How should conformance claims which extend beyond the baseline be
expressed? In particular, should there be multiple "levels" of
conformance as in WCAG 1.0, or should checkpoints other than those
included in the minimum set, to which conformance is asserted, be
listed individually as part of the conformance claim? Should there
instead be a combination of "discrete levels" and lists of
checkpoints?

c. By what means should it be possible to express conformance claims?
Should there be only one available option (e.g., the Evaluation and
Report Language), or should the working group define two or more
distinct methods by which to publish conformance claims?
Alternatively, should the working group define what items of
information must be included in a valid conformance claim, and simply
stipulate that the conformance claim itself must be provided in an
"accessible" way, that is, one which complies with the guidelines
themselves?
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 04:55:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:16 GMT