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

Re: conformance level proposal

From: Kerstin Goldsmith <kerstin.goldsmith@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2004 13:57:53 -0800
Message-ID: <403E6BE1.1060404@oracle.com>
To: "Yvette P. Hoitink" <y.p.hoitink@heritas.nl>
Cc: "'Matt May'" <mcmay@w3.org>, "'WAI WCAG List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Also, numbers versus letters tend to be easier to internationalize.

-Kerstin

Yvette P. Hoitink wrote:

>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 16:57:29 UTC

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