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

Re: Conformance claims - by success criteria?

From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 18:34:29 -0400
Message-Id: <>
To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
         I'm not ready to make a proposal for a two level scheme, specific 
and public, but close ...

         I have concerns about using WCAG 1.0 as a "pure accessibility 
model" because it failed - that's why we're doing 2.0 .... to dredge up an 
old, frequently repeated axiom, the basic Guideline 1.1 should require 
alternatives to text as well as non-text in order to be a "pure" 
accessibility model ....

         I do agree that technology-specific checkpoints should be flexible 
to allow for emerging technologies the day after the checkpoints are set in 
stone ....


At 05:59 PM 10/11/01 -0400, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
>In today's call we talked a lot about using metadata to make conformance 
>claims.  Our assumption was that we would be expressing conformance to 
>checkpoints.  What if instead conformance was to the success criteria?  We 
>already have some criteria that are conditional.
>This seems overwhelming, yet would be very exact and possible using 
>I still also wonder about what conformance will look like at the 
>technology-specific level.  Do we have one priority scheme for 
>guidelines/checkpoints and another for technology-specifics?  Cynthia drew 
>3 axes that we must address when creating a priority scheme:
>       WCAG 1.0 - pure accessibility model
>       technical feasibility
>       reasonableness or mitigating factors or something
>One possibility is that guidelines/checkpoints priorities are based on the 
>pure accessibility model, while the priority scheme for 
>technology-specifics takes into account technical feasibility and other 
>mitigating factors.
>But, how would these fit together into one coherent conformance claim?
>Perhaps at the guideline/checkpoint level we have priorities, but at the 
>technology-specific layer they are not priorities but 
>"possibilities."  Clearly defining what is possible and most widely used 
>today.  Keeping in mind Gregory's "opt-out" strategy to be included for 
>each technology-specific "possibility."
>Just some random thoughts...sorry no clear proposal.
>wendy a chisholm
>world wide web consortium
>web accessibility initiative
>seattle, wa usa

Anne Pemberton

Received on Thursday, 11 October 2001 18:36:50 UTC

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