RE: conformance level proposal

Hi Matt,

Simple question: why letters? We have level 1, 2 and 3 checkpoints that
directly correspond to the level of conformance, what would be easier than
just using these numbers for conformance levels as well? You would have
level 1, level 1+, level 2 or level 3 conformance. You can even have level
2+ if you want. 

Extra benefit: less confusion with WCAG 1. Handy since level AA WCAG 2
covers more (in my opinion) than level AA WCAG 1. Using a different system
makes it clear that different criteria are met.

Yvette Hoitink
CEO Heritas, Enschede, the Netherlands
E-mail: y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl



> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Matt May
> Sent: donderdag 26 februari 2004 19:53
> To: WCAG WG
> Subject: conformance level proposal
> 
> 
> I'm in the middle of reviewing the latest WCAG draft. It occurs to me
> (again) that the concept of A+ conformance in the middle of 
> A-AAA is confusing in the current scheme. I think I have a 
> fix for this, and I'd like this to be discussed on a future 
> conference call.
> 
> We have A, double-A, and triple-A levels of conformance. 
> However, most Americans equate ratings like A+ with grades 
> received in school (where 
> A+ is usually 100%). In this case, someone who sees an A+ rating for
> accessibility would assume that the site has done the maximum 
> for accessibility, where in actuality this is far from the 
> case. And authors may be more interested in displaying A+ 
> than, say, AA.
> 
> I present an alternative that solves this and the following 
> problems with the current formulation:
> - screen reader pronunciation of A, AA and AAA as similar sounds
> - mnemonic for B = Basic, A = Advanced, which translates at 
> least into Spanish (básico/avanzado) and French (base/avancé 
> or augmenté), which is as far as I go linguistically
> - eliminates the red-herring AAA conformance level by 
> producing a top level of conformance that is capable of being achieved
> 
> B - Basic accessibility - all guidelines met at Level 1
> B+ - Meets all guidelines at Level 1 plus six (of 13 applicable
> guidelines) at Level 2
> A - Meets all guidelines at Level 1 and Level 2
> A+ - Meets all guidelines at Level 1 and Level 2, plus six (of 12) at
> Level 3
> 
> As for the +n situation, I still believe that anyone who 
> wants to claim 
> how many items they conform over and above a given priority should do 
> so in metadata alone. The value of enumerating which 
> checkpoints a site 
> claims to conform to should go to users determining which sites they 
> can used based on that metadata. Additionally, the more different 
> variables added to the conformance claim, the harder it will be to 
> explain to the audience of users, and thus the weaker the branding of 
> WCAG.
> 
> I'm very familiar with the argument that certain companies can't make 
> that claim for legal reasons, and that's fine -- they can 
> stick with B 
> or A, if they make a claim at all. (Right now, most larger companies, 
> even those who have accessibility practices in place, make no claims, 
> and nothing will cause that to change.) The important part of the 
> conformance scheme is that it provides an easier step up for 
> sites that 
> want to become progressively more accessible.
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> -
> m
>

Received on Thursday, 26 February 2004 14:12:43 UTC