W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2003

RE: Take 5 - Proposal for Definitions and conformance GROUPS

From: Lisa Seeman <seeman@netvision.net.il>
Date: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 13:22:12 +0200
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <001401c30caf$91826d80$7200000a@patirsrv.patir.com>
I think we are getting there, but we are not there yet.

It may just be the ambiguity in the wording - does "address compatibility of
the Web content with assistive technologies for all disabilities"  imply
each checkpoint addresses all disabilities?  If you consider server
cognitive and sight related disabilities, I am not sure what accessibility
pointers, if any, are appropriate for all.

 I think "mass marketed" technologies will be very hard to define-  a mass
marketed product, is a question of marketing budget, and does not imply
widely  available across operating systems, or affordable. Are we talking
about market share? - this seems sticky - and fast changing, and it means
throwing money around makes compatibility with your products a core
requirement.  I would steer clear of this and talk about things we can

"Reasonably applied to all types of web content or sites" this is also
problematic. Take the example:  using correct markup - none of the popular
web authoring tools make valid HTML/XHTML - so is this reasonable? All
tricky stuff.

I think we are taking about a core set of checkpoint, but we do not yet know
how to define them.

It seems we are saying we : (my proposal)

Group A (core): Criteria that "brakes" (current and developing?)  assistive
technology and/or blocks basic access to the page content and
functionality - with minimal changes to the presentation, functionality and
content of the page (almost all changes affect the view - but we are trying
to minimize this)

Group B (basically the same stuff just more of it), - enhance the ability to
access the content of the page - this may involve a minor change to the
view, presentation, and content of the page

Group C - Other. These may make major changes to the page view, and may not
be "reasonable" for many sites.

I would call Group C: "comprehensive accessibility"

Let us look at content (not presentation) for cognitive as that is the
tricky one and the one that needs resolving ( if it works for  this the rest
falls into place)

A: Core requirement - Relative units for text, removing unclear ambiguities
(that can not be reliable resolved by common general semantic rules) either
in the text, formal markup or annotating a header file, so that the page can
be translated to a symbolic language at the user end, and marking text as
important (using mark up like headers and emphasis, or annotations - however
when just an rendering of "important" text is  created, the page makes
sense) .

Group B, Additional requirements -  Clear titles. A basic review with soft
wording ("as appropriate for the intended audience") where almost everyone
can be doing this. All text should be expandable.

Group C, Comprehensive requirements - The full review -and  edit - with out
compromised wording (IE: miss out all the "were appropriate" stuff) ,
providing summaries, alterative picture for instructional text, short
sentences etc

All the best,
Lisa Seeman

UnBounded Access

Widen the World Web

Tel: +972 (2) 675-1233
Fax: +972 (2) 675-1195

  -----Original Message-----
  From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
  Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 6:58 AM
  To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
  Subject: FW: Take 5 - Proposal for Definitions and conformance GROUPS


  Below is my attempt to capture the latest conversations on GROUPS and
CONFORMANCE  (dubbed 'take 5').    This is the next installment in our
evolution of this thread of ideas - but it is not a final proposal, and not
a consensus report at this time.    It is just our working document listing
our thoughts at this time.

  Instead of talking about levels we decided to change the name to something
like GROUPs or SETs.    We decided to ask the EO group for their thoughts on
word choice.   In the meantime I've used GROUP below since I listened and
the word GROUP was used more than SET in the comments near the end of the
call.    Also, in the narrative below it talks about other groups,
governments or organizations creating their own SETS of items.


  GROUP A - Those measures that can provide access without changing or
constraining the presentation of the page - and that it was felt could be
reasonably applied to all web content or sites.

    a.. These items address compatibility of the Web content with assistive
technologies for all disabilities.
    b.. They also include accessibility that can be achieved using mass
market web browsing technologies but that do not affect the default view of
the content by all users.
    c.. These measures would constitute the core required set of checkpoints

  GROUP B. - Those measures that allow access beyond Group A but can be
reasonably applied to all types of web content or sites.

  .        These measures affect the presentation of the pages somewhat in
order to make them more accessible.

  .        They often allow access to some individuals without requiring any
assistive technology.

  .        These do not address all disabilities but allow many to access
web content using mass market web browsing technologies alone.

  GROUP C. - Those measures that improve access, either directly or via
assistive technology, beyond Group A but that cannot be applied reasonably
to all web sites or content.

  .        Some would require multiple presentations of the information or
targeting of the web site to individuals with particular functional

  .        Some would be an unreasonable amount of work to expect of all web
content or sites.


   Group A  - would be required for any conformance.   People, companies, or
governments could then select any items from Groups B or C to create
"Priority" or "Conformance" beyond Group 1 for their purposes. (or they
could include items from GROUP  2 in THEIR minimum. )

  However the intent would be that Agencies or Governments would NOT CHANGE
the wording of any checkpoints or success criteria themselves.  Thus
different entities might have different sets of requirements (and thus
different emphases), but all would be compatible with each other.  If you
did the union of all the different guidelines and complied with that union
set, you would meet all of the guidelines for the different countries and
you would have a proper subset of the WCAG 2.0 guidelines (and it would
include all of the minimum or Group A guidelines of the WCAG 2.0.).


  -          All Group A items would need to be met in order to make any
claim of conformance.

  -          After Group A was met, a claim of conformance could include any
mix of items in GROUPS B and/or C.

  -          If ALL of GROUP B were met it might be nice to have a mark for

  -          If ALL of GROUP B AND C (and of course A) were met we should
definitely have a mark.

  -                                  (Is it likely that anyone would ever or
could ever meet all of Group C without meeting Group B?)


  We also talked about names for the different levels of conformance.

  One approach is to refer to GROUP A as the CORE requirements.  Conformance
at this level would be referred to as CORE compliance or conformance.

  For any checkpoints beyond core you would use a plus and the number.   For
example:    CORE +6 conformance.

  One could argue that not all the checkpoints should be considered equal.
But that may be a fine point - and subjective.  So just using the numbering
may be as good as anything.

  For those that get all of GROUP B we might use 'ADVANCED" or 'EXTENDED"
conformance.   EXTENDED may be the better word.  It is a common word in W3C
for the next level of conformance.   And we are "extending" the
accessibility to more users.

  Other words tossed out



  What Groups do the cognitive items fall into in Take 5?
  They fall into all three groups.  In Group A - people with cognitive
disabilities are able to benefit from current and future AT browsing
technologies as well from web content that is routed through transcoding
servers and changed into forms that are directly accessible via mass market
browsing products.

  How does this change the organization of the guidelines?  Would these go
under our current checkpoints?
  That remains to be seen.  These might go right under the guidelines - with
the checkpoints falling under them.   This would both break up some and
recombine other current checkpoints.  There is a subgroup of the working
group that is exploring different alternatives and reworkings right now.

  How do these groups relate to WCAG 1.0?
  Details remain to be sorted out.    Group A will be much like WCAG 1.0 and
WCAG 1.0 compliant sites should have little difficulty meeting most or all
of the Group A criteria.   Some things required in 1.0 may not be required
in GROUP A.    More detail will need to wait til we are further along.

  Groups B and C will be like  AA and AAA levels but there is not a direct
correspondence.  The new approach provides much more flexibility in
reporting or claiming conformance, and allows reporting of incremental
progress beyond the minimum with much greater detail and flexibility than
1.0.   Again, sites compliant with 1.0 should do well with 2.0.




  Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
  Professor - Human Factors
  Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
  Director - Trace R & D Center
  University of Wisconsin-Madison
  Gv@trace.wisc.edu <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <http://trace.wisc.edu/>
  FAX 608/262-8848
  For a list of our listserves http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/
Received on Sunday, 27 April 2003 06:27:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:44 UTC