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

Re: Please review: Updated draft of conformance section for next draft

From: Carlos A Velasco <Carlos.Velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2003 21:11:21 +0200
Message-ID: <3EE62D59.5020502@fit.fraunhofer.de>
To: Wendy A Chisholm <wendy@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org

Hi Wendy, all,

Just a quick thought. We are all well aware that one of the problems of 
expressing conformance to WCAG 1.0 was "how do I explain this to a 
non-technical person" (e.g. legislator, politician, manager, etc.). The 
different drafts of WCAG 2.0 seem to become more and more cumbersome in 
this issue. We shall probably start to think that we are not writing for 
ourselves, as the abstract says "... and to use wording that may be 
understood by a more varied audience."

In Germany, WCAG 1.0 has been adopted as legislation, combining WCAG 1.0 
  A and AA into Priority 1 items, and AAA as Priority 2 (almost). We 
have discussed this issue with people involved in the legal process, and 
basically, there is no chance a legal document can deal with A 
Conformance, A+ Conformance, AA- Conformance and so on (not to mention 
Core+1, Core+2, etc.). In Europe, most countries are adopting or intend 
to adopt WCAG in one way or another. And they want to update to WCAG 
2.0, when the moment comes (at least, in Germany). Conformance is a key 
issue, and we shall make it simpler.

2 (Euro-)cents from an outsider.

regards,
carlos

Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> At last week's meeting, I took an action to update the draft conformance 
> section based on discussion.  It is attached.
> 
> Major changes:
> 
> 1. added "Best Practice items to do not need to be met to claim 
> conformance to a Checkpoint." to explanations of Core and Extended.
> 2. added summary of issues with Core+ to bullet 4 of "Conformance Claims"
> 
> --wendy
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
>       Conformance
> 
> *Reviewer's Note:* As we publish this Working Draft of WCAG 2.0, the 
> WCAG WG is in the midst of significantly changing the conformance scheme 
> from previous drafts. This section outlines the conformance structure 
> used throughout this document. Feedback, comments, and proposals are 
> encouraged.
> 
> Checkpoints are divided into two groups:
> 
> *Core*
>     To conform to WCAG 2.0, the Required Success Criteria of Core
>     Checkpoints must be satisfied. Best Practice items to do not need to
>     be met to claim conformance to a Checkpoint.
> *Extended*
>     These are additional checkpoints that may be reported in addition to
>     Core conformance if the Required Success Criteria for a given
>     Extended Checkpoint are satisfied. Best Practice items to do not
>     need to be met to claim conformance to a Checkpoint.
> 
> 
>         Conformance Claims
> 
>    1. No conformance claim of any type may be made unless all Required
>       Success Criteria have been met for all Core Checkpoints.
>    2. If /all/ of the Required Success Criteria for /all/ Core
>       Checkpoints have been met, then a conformance claim of "WCAG 2.0
>       Core" can be made.
>    3. If /all/ of the Required Success Criteria for /all/ Core /and all/
>       Extended Checkpoints have been met, then a conformance claim of
>       "WCAG 2.0 Extended" can be made.
>    4. If /all/ of the Required Success Criteria for /all/ Core and
>       /some/ Extended Checkpoints have been met, then a conformance
>       claim of "WCAG 2.0 Core+" can be made. *Reviewer's Note*: Feedback
>       from WCAG 1.0 indicates that developers often do not attempt to
>       meet any Priority 2 Checkpoints because there is no way to
>       indicate in the conformance claim that they have "done more than
>       Level A but not enough to claim Level AA." "Core+" is a proposal
>       that allows developers to say, "I do more than Core but not all of
>       the Extended." However, the WCAG WG has several issues and
>       questions about Core+ conformance claims:
>           * How should conformance claims state /which/ Extended
>             Checkpoints are met? in metadata? in a site accessibility
>             statement? some other method?
>           * How should conformance claims state /how many/ Extended
>             Checkpoints are met? in metadata? with core+n (n=number of
>             Extended checkpoints)? in a site accessibility statement?
>             some other method?
>           * If Core+ is claimed, should we require a statement about
>             which Extended checkpoints are met?
>           * Is there a separate logo for each level: core, core+, and
>             extended? If so,what does the logo point to?
>           * Comparisons of Core+ conformance claims can not be made
>             unless detailed information is provided about the Extended
>             checkpoints that are met.
>           * Should detailed conformance information be provided in
>             metadata? There is doubt that it will be kept up to date,
>             especially if the site becomes/less/ accessible over time.
>             Also, we may be unable to require metadata since some
>             companies have indicated that the legal and ISO 9000
>             ramifications would prevent them from posting metadata
>             describing the exact conformance.
>           * If it were possible to claim "Core+n" where "n" denotes the
>             number of Extended Checkpoints that are met, some developers
>             report that they would be encouraged to meet more Extended
>             Checkpoints and increase the number they can report.
>             However, people are likely to compare the number and these
>             comparisons could be misleading. For example, a site that
>             claims "Core+2" could be more accessible than a site that
>             claims "Core+3" depending on which checkpoints are met.
> 
> All conformance claims must include (at minimum):
> 
>    1. The version of the guidelines to which a conformance claim is made
>       and the dated URI of the guidelines document.
>    2. The scope of the conformance claim. The scope describes which
>       parts of a site or application are included in the claim.
>       *Reviewer's Note:*Should exclusions be allowed for certain types
>       of content, such as third-party or copyrighted material that is
>       being reprinted? How does one define scope? Is it an end-to-end
>       process that the user should be able to complete? Is it a path
>       through accessible content?
>    3. The set of checkpoints being claimed (Core or Extended).
>    4. The date the conformance claim was made.
> 
> 
>         Sites that conform to WCAG 1.0
> 
> Sites that currently conform to WCAG 1.0 that want to shift towards WCAG 
> 2.0 will want to capitalize on past accessibility efforts. A qualified 
> conformance statement could allow them this flexibility. For example, a 
> conformance claim might include the following statement, "Materials 
> created or modified before 24 April 2003 conform to WCAG 1.0. Materials 
> created or modified on or after 24 April 2003 conform to WCAG 2.0."
> 
> *Reviewer's Note:* In some instances, the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft may be 
> easier to conform to than the WCAG 1.0 Recommendation while other 
> criteria might be harder to meet in WCAG 2.0 than in WCAG 1.0. The WCAG 
> WG will consider the differences between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 
> conformance and offer advice to developers who currently conform to WCAG 
> 1.0. This advice might take the form of a WCAG 1.0 conformance profile 
> to WCAG 2.0 and information about migrating from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0. 
> This advice is not yet available.
> 

-- 
Dr Carlos A Velasco - mailto:Carlos.Velasco@fit.fraunhofer.de
Fraunhofer-Institut für Angewandte Informationstechnik (FIT.LIFE)
   [Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology (FIT.LIFE)]
   http://access.fit.fraunhofer.de/
   Barrierefreie Informations- und Kommunikationstechnologie für Alle
   Schloss Birlinghoven, D53757 Sankt Augustin (Germany)
   Tel: +49-2241-142609 Fax: +49-2241-1442609
Received on Tuesday, 10 June 2003 15:10:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:22 GMT