# Conformance Ideas Collection #2

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 18:09:20 -0500
To: "GLWAI Guidelines WG \(GL - WAI Guidelines WG\)" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006c01c15760\$c10fce40\$b2176880@trace.wisc.edu>
```In prep for the next call,

Here are the conformance ideas I have collected to date.
If I missed any -- please send to me directly at gv@trace.wisc.edu

thanks

Gregg

=================

In order to work on conformance,  it was suggested that we collect
different approaches and ideas.    I will be putting these together in a
collection.

The current collection is below.   I am not listing names with items
since I think it is better if we use ideas as ideas - and many (most?)
are based on ideas of multiple people.

NOTE:  THERE IS NO CONSENSUS ON THESE -- THEY ARE JUST DIFFERENT
APPROACHES.

Please make them all short and concise.

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

#1 CONFORMANCE IDEA

1.1.  We have layers of conformance (A, Double A, Triple A).

1.2.  You cannot claim level of conformance below A.  It is the
minimum.

1.3.  It is not clear whether only normative items would be used to
determine Double A or Triple A.

1.4.  Individuals doing more than A would claim A+.  Clicking on the +
would take them to a list of the items covered by the +.

1.5.  A possibility would be to claim A+7, where a number would follow
the plus sign.  This would provide additional incentive for people to do
more than one or a few beyond A (since even one item beyond A would be A
+, so why do any more until you could get to Double A otherwise).

1.6.  All items are currently self-report, but normative items are
testable.

1.7.  Conformance to informative items would simply be by assertion.
People conform if they assert that they conform.  Items should be worded
such that this makes the most sense.  This sounds problematic.  [Is
there an alternative?]

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

#2

2.1. The working group should define one or more "standard formats" to
be followed in making conformance assertions.

2.2. More than one format may be necessary due to the diverse
technologies which may be used to construct web content. For
example, text accompanied by a raster image icon may be the norm in
HTML, but inappropriate in SVG, PDF or other formats.

2.3. The working group should permit EARL (the Evaluation and Report
Language) to be used to make conformance claims, in addition to or
in place of a human-readable conformance assertion.

Note the discussion a few years ago regarding "closet conformance
claims", in which it was decided that these were acceptable, especially
if provided in RDF in accordance with  a schema such as EARL.

--------------
#3

3.1    A conformance scheme should be a meta-conformance scheme that
allows policy makers to describe their policy in WCAG 2.0 (and gives
guidance to minimum policy requirements), instead of serving as a policy
itself.  WCAG 2.0 conformance should not look like policy, but should
look like a toolkit for building policy.  This philosophy is in line
with the goals and aims of WCAG working group charter, as we are not
"writing laws" but we are writing primary material to be used by policy
setters (as well as providing technical documentation for developers).

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

#4
Another possibility for conformance which is an amalgamation of a few of
the approaches already put forward is.

4.1 Create a 'Minimum Standard' of accessibility. In order for a site to
be considered accessible a site must meet this minimum standard. A
predetermined number of Guidelines.

4.2 It is possible to exceed the 'Minimum Standard' by adhering to the
guidelines which exist beyond the 'Minimum Standard'.

4.3 The 'Minimum Standard' should be high (higher than current Single
A).

NOTES:
This approach is similar to that used in New Zealand for building
accessibility.

It has the advantage of being conceptually very simple and also of
raising the 'Minimum Bar'.

Any Level of Conformance must be able to respond to the swift level of
technological change by either being easy to review or as independent as
possible from the underlying technology.

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

REMINDER - NO ONE HAS SAID THEY AGREE WITH ANY PORTION OF THIS,  THESE
ARE JUST IDEAS FOR DISCUSSION COLLECTED IN ONE PLACE.

Gregg
```
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2001 19:10:41 GMT

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