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

RE: New proposal for WCAG conformance

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2003 10:11:55 -0500
Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A1DFA63@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
To: <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, "Michael Cooper" <michaelc@watchfire.com>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Couldn't we use something like <abbr title="double A">AA</abbr>  to
solve this? Or even <abbr title="A A">AA</abbr>?

"Good design is accessible design." 
Please note our new name and URL!
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 10:03 am
To: 'Michael Cooper'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: New proposal for WCAG conformance

Hi Michael


The reason for  Single A , Double A etc is that some screen readers and
talking browsers read   A  AA AAA  as AH AHH and AHHHH



How about      A ,    2A ,  and   3A   


Look like old system but is a bit different - making it easy to compare
and tell the difference. 



 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Michael Cooper
Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2003 8:15 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: RE: New proposal for WCAG conformance


I like the simplicity of this proposal as well. A couple minor comments
for the mill:


The "Principles" need introductory text. No need to write now, but there
should be a placeholder. This jumps out at me more when they're
"principles" than when they're "guidelines".


"Single-A Success Criteria", "Double-A Success Criteria", etc. rubs me
as weird terminology. Perhaps just "A Success Criteria", "AA Success
Criteria", etc. since there's a goal to stick with pre-existing




	-----Original Message-----
	From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu]
	Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 1:48 PM
	To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
	Subject: New proposal for WCAG conformance

	[NOTE: This is posted today for discussion NEXT week.  Not for
this week.  Not sufficient time for people to review. Comments welcome


	Described here is an alternate way to look at conformance


	It addresses the following concerns

	1 - multiple dimensions of conformance

	2 - match to WCAG 1.0 in structure and measures

	[BBC] I'd reword #2 to say "compatibility with WCAG 1.0 and
other WAI guidelines" 3 - ability to both have minimum and advanced ways
to address individual guidelines


	This proposal assumes:


	1 - that the 4 guidelines are now principles (Perceivable,
Operable, Understandable and Robust)


	2 - that the old checkpoints are now Guidelines. 


	3 - that the success criteria remain success criteria  (the term
checkpoints would be reserved for the checklists so we don't have
confusion between the two which is almost certain if we have checklists
and checkpoints that are different.





	- The terms CORE and EXTENDED are dropped. (these terms are used
differently in other technical specs and didn't quite fit here.  Also
they introduced a completely different structure and terminology than
WCAG 1.0)


	- All 20 (or so) guidelines would be listed under the four
principles and numbered  1.1, 1.2 etc. (no change from previous drafts)


	- All success criteria are labeled as Category 1, 2 or 3 


	    Category 1 = success criteria that 

	       a) the author is not told how to present their

	       b) the criteria are reasonably applicable to all websites
in general


	       c) are machine or HHIR testable.


	   Category 2 = success criteria that 

	      a) are reasonably applicable to all websites in general

	      b) are machine or HHIR testable 

	      c) may require the author to present their content in 

	      particular ways to conform.


	   Category 3 = additional criteria that go beyond Category 1
and 2 

	      that authors may want to consider if they want to make
their sites 

	      accessible or more usable to people with all or particular
types of 



	- Some guidelines will have NO Category 1 items under them and
are so marked.


	- The conformance would take the form of the familiar A, AA, and
AAA.  The only difference would be that guidelines without category 1
criteria would be listed at the end of each principle and would have a
title following them

	that said, "no Level A criteria for this guideline."    


	- the Categories might be relabeled A, AA and AAA


	- The guidelines (or an accompanying document) could have a
series of checkboxes that allowed the user to view it with the following
materials showing or hidden.


	    - Introduction

	    - Level A success criteria 

	    - Level AA success criteria

	    - Level AAA additional criteria

	    - Benefits

	    - Examples

	    - Appendix


	This would have a couple disadvantages that we can look at and
tweak. But, the advantages look like they outweigh the weaknesses.


	And, it solves most of the problems we have been facing:

	  - WCAG 2.0 would for the first time look like an evolution of
WCAG 1.0

	  - The familiar A, AA, AAA would be there.

	  - Most of the WCAG 1.0 will match up with WCAG 2.0 except
where the 

	    working group believes that they no long should.

	  - The guidelines would look more like 1.0 but would be

	  - Transition would be easier to understand.


	To see how all this might look, we have posted another
reorganization proposal at http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/10/reorg5.html.



	Note that a number of condensed views of this draft are provided
immediately following the list of editors.


	You can view it with ONLY Level A conformance criteria.

	Or A plus Double A

	Or A plus Double A plus Triple A


	The appendix is shown in all views


	The Examples and Benefits could be made to appear in different
views but only appear in the full view right now.


	PS if you click on a view then want to get back to the full doc
you can hit "BACK" or click on the "THIS VERSION" link at the top of
all views.


	-Gregg and Ben



Received on Thursday, 16 October 2003 11:11:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:33:46 UTC