W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2004

Re: conformance level proposal

From: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 12:06:48 -0800
Message-Id: <4F627FB5-6897-11D8-B715-000393B628BC@w3.org>
Cc: "'WAI WCAG List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
To: "Yvette P. Hoitink" <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>

On Feb 26, 2004, at 11:12 AM, Yvette P. Hoitink wrote:
> 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.

I'm not against using numbers, per se, though I would still lean toward 
letters, since the version number would also have to be a part of the 
claim (is WCAG 2-B+  more usable than WCAG 2-1+?).

I still disagree with offering a level-3 conformance claim. To design 
any Web resource to conform to all level 3 guidelines is almost 
impossible for all but the most simple examples, and our experience 
with WCAG 1 seems to show that claims of triple-A conformance are 
bogus. I'd rather set a bar (A+) that people can achieve, and lower 
ones that are more reasonable, than set one that users can't put any 
faith in.

-
m
Received on Thursday, 26 February 2004 15:06:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:17:55 UTC