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 becomesless 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.