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

Re: Conformance Ideas Collection #2

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 09:13:38 -0800
To: "_W3C-WAI Web Content Access. Guidelines List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <007f01c17442$31f5cb20$3394003e@dev1>
Small comment,

I think the simple approach of the priority level has it's place, as it is
easy to use, but I like the changing the wording. In calling minimal
accessibility  priority one  single A, people feel content to leaving it at
that. A term that emphasize that there is more to do would be better, like:
minimum bar, or basic  accessibility. ( Intermediate and advance level for
the double A and triple A)

We also found an accessibility problem when using AA in that some screen
reader reads it, making it sound the same a triple A.

It also sounds a bit discriminatory that the recommendations for some
disabilities only feature  a
low priority, (like cognitive disabilities). It is better if they do not

Another suggestion is to have a retrofitting minimum bar, so that content
authors who are retrofitting a page can have an attainable checklist, but it
is understood that this is not the ideal situation.

All the best,
Lisa

----- Original Message -----
From: "Wendy A Chisholm" <wendy@w3.org>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, October 18, 2001 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: Conformance Ideas Collection #2


> These ideas are from the developers point of view and perhaps also policy
> maker.  The other audience of conformance will be the user.  For example,
> when someone wants to search for content that meets their needs - such as
> illustrating text with graphics and multimedia or providing text for all
media.
>
> These needs are implied in the following conformance ideas, but I think we
> need to state them explicitly.  Perhaps we need to list the possible
> benefits for each conformance idea?
>
> I have made an initial attempt below.
>
> I also have a few comments on some of the ideas that I've stated inline.
>
> >#1 CONFORMANCE IDEA
> >
> >1.1.  We have layers of conformance (A, Double A, Triple A).
>
> Developer benefit: help prioritize where to start working.
> User benefit: help find sites that do minimal amount of work versus those
> that try to go further.
>
> >1.2.  You cannot claim level of conformance below A.  It is the
> >minimum.
>
> User benefit: encourage minimum level of accessibility
>
> >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 +.
>
> Developer benefit: able to get credit for moving beyond minimal
conformance.
> User benefit: encourages developers to do more than minimum, widening the
> accessibility techniques employed on a site (rather than discouraging
> developers to only to minimum)
>
> >1.6.  All items are currently self-report, but normative items are
> >testable.
>
> Unrelated to benefits - I thought we were going to modify this statement
> since it is saying two things.  The second part, "normative items are
> testable" is a consensus item.
>
> >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?]
>
> Unrelated to benefits - It sounds odd to say "conformance to informative
> items."   In the midst of the "what does normative mean" debate, here is a
> defn that takes into account both Anne's perspective and the usage by the
> W3C and other standards bodies:
> http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci214069,00.html
>
> I don't see how we can have "conformance to informative items."  As Gregg
> notes, "This sound problematic." I agree and think this item should be
> removed from consideration.
>
> We do need to think about the role informative information will play, but
I
> don't think it can be part of conformance.
>
> >#2
> >
> >2.1. The working group should define one or more "standard formats" to
> >    be followed in making conformance assertions.
>
> Developer benefit: can use the one that makes most sense to them.
> User benefit: by having standard formats, tools can be used to search
> conformance claims.
>
> >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.
>
> Developer benefit: can make very granular claims.  Can store progress in
> machine-readable form.  Progress tracked.  Reports can be automatically
> generated.  See http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/Overview.html#earl for scenarios
> and other benefits.
> User benefit: tools can be used to search conformance claims.  Part of
this
> could be to advocate how many sites are conforming to which checkpoints,
> point developers to sites that do good things (make it easier to find
those
> good examples), help policy makers make decisions.
>
> >#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).
>
> Here's a benefit for policy makers!
>
> >#4
> >Another possibility for conformance which is an amalgamation of a few of
> >the approaches already put forward is.
>
> These benefits are similar to #1.  Incidentally, I like this scheme best.
>
> >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.
>
> --wendy
> --
> wendy a chisholm
> world wide web consortium
> web accessibility initiative
> seattle, wa usa
> /--
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2001 03:14:01 GMT

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