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

Re: conformance

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 06:12:19 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
Cc: W3C Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
In the triple-layer scheme, the accommodations for cognitive disabilities 
were only required at the top level which conveyed a sense that they were 
basically unnecessary, barring a lot of people from using sites. Reducing 
the conformance to two levels eliminates the level no one ever strives for ...

Using the purpose of a site to determine what conformance level to use 
makes the most sense to me. If a site has a limited audience, go for 
minimum and add only what you need to serve your known audience .... but if 
your site is for the general public, then it must comply such that everyone 
can use it and none have the empty plate. To do anything less is to consign 
some users to only using entertainment sites and never getting at any meat.

I see no need for a reporting system since there is no audience for the 
reports. It's a waste of time.


At 10:45 PM 10/10/01 -0400, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>Well, I think there have been a number of voices to say that presenting
>something simple to users is important.
>There have also been calls for somethiing that allows for more flexible and
>complex reporting.
>I think  both of these needs can be met well, the first by agreeing (for now)
>to having a simple conformance system (I would say no more complex than the
>three levels of WCAG 1.0), and the second by enabloing more detailed
>reporting through EARL or other metadata schemes which can be readily
>transformed into the simple form.
>However, I don't think that whether sites are open to the public, or who the
>site provider is, makes good grounds for deciding on a different conformance
>level. I think that it needs to be clearer what the difference in conformance
>means to users, and then authors have the responsibility to work  out to what
>extent they will ensure access.
>Charles McCN
>On Wed, 10 Oct 2001, Anne Pemberton wrote:
>   Gian's explanation helps make it obvious that only two levels are needed
>   ... minimum level for those whose sites have a limited audience and full
>   compliance for all sites with a general audience or a specific audience
>   that includes folks with all disabilities.
>   Government sites have greater reason to be fully compliant than disability
>   providers (who may target one or two types of disabilities rather than the
>   full range). Commercial sites that offer services and products to the
>   general public have greater reasons for compliance than commercial sites
>   that are just "we are here" sites.
>   Again, I think we can do it with two uncomplicated levels, one for sites
>   that aren't open to the public and one for those that are.
>                                                                 Anne
>   Anne Pemberton
>   apembert@erols.com
>   http://www.erols.com/stevepem
>   http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
>Charles McCathieNevile    http://www.w3.org/People/Charles phone: +61 409 
>134 136
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative     http://www.w3.org/WAI   fax: +1 617 
>258 5999
>Location: 21 Mitchell street FOOTSCRAY Vic 3011, Australia
>(or W3C INRIA, Route des Lucioles, BP 93, 06902 Sophia Antipolis Cedex, 

Anne Pemberton

Received on Thursday, 11 October 2001 06:17:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:39 UTC