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

RE: Action item: proposed rewrite of conformance section

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 12:46:15 -0600
Message-Id: <200403291846.i2TIkGML019600@jalopy.cae.wisc.edu>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi John

 

What did you use as the source that you worked from.

 

This list doesn't seem to be a simpler form of our current guidelines.    

For example at level 3 you mention cog and language  and also 'hard to
quantify" 

 

I would remove those -

 

Level 3 must also be testable and cognitive and language are in all levels.
This looks like level 3 is for those.  

 

Thanks for tackling this.   Can you do a version that is based off of our
current draft?

 

Thanks. 

 

 
Gregg

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

  _____  

From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of John M Slatin
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:29 PM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: Action item: proposed rewrite of conformance section

 

At the F2F in Los Angeles, I took an action item to revise the Conformance
section for clarity.  Here's my first attempt, based on the 11 March 2004
Working Draft [1].

 

<begin proposed>


Conformance


Editorial Note: There are several open issues with the proposed conformance
scheme. This section outlines the conformance scheme used throughout this
document. Feedback, comments, and proposals are encouraged.

WCAG 2.0 establishes four principles of accessibility and defines 14
guidelines for applying those principles. Under each guideline are one or
more success criteria that must be satisfied in order to claim conformance
to WCAG 2.0. 

There are three levels of success criteria. The levels are defined as
follows: 

*         Level 1 success criteria: 

1.      do not set limits on the default presentation of content;

2.      rely on the functionality of user agents, including some assistive
technologies;

3.      May reasonably be applied to all Web sites

4.      Are testable. some success criteria are machine-testable. Others
require human judgment. Success criteria that require human testing are
capable of yielding consistent results among multiple testers.

*         Level 2 success criteria: 

1.      may require an author to present content in particular ways

2.      May reasonably be applied to all Web sites

3.      Are testable. some success criteria are machine-testable. Others
require human judgment. Success criteria that require human testing are
capable of yielding consistent results among multiple testers.

*         Level 3 success criteria: 

1.      May provide essential benefits for users with specific disabilities
such as cognitive impairments and learning disabilities;

2.      Make Web resources more accessible to a broad range of users with
disabilities;

3.      May require additional content or impose limits on the way content
is presented.

4.      May yield evaluation results that are difficult to quantify

Editorial Note: To facilitate discussion related to the levels assigned to
each criterion, a square bracket notation is included at the end of each
criterion. "[V]" (visible) indicates that the criterion does not limit the
default presentation of content. A notation of "[I]" (invisible) indicates
that addressing the criterion may require an author to present content in
particular ways. [js note: This use of "v" and "I" seems counterintuitive to
me. I keep wanting "visible" to mean that the criterion results in something
that's visible in the default presentation, while "invisible" means
something that's invisible to the "naked eye."]

Note: 

Some guidelines do not contain level 1 success criteria.


Conformance Claims


1.      In order to make a valid conformance claim for a Web resource, the
resource must satisfy all level 1 success criteria for all guidelines.

2.      A conformance claim of "WCAG 2.0 Level A" can be made if all level 1
success criteria for all guidelines have been met.

3.      A conformance claim of "WCAG 2.0 A+" can be made if all level 1
success criteria for all guidelines and some level 2 success criteria have
been met. 

4.      A conformance claim of "WCAG 2.0 AA" can be made if all level 1
success criteria and all level 2 success criteria for all guidelines have
been met.

5.      A conformance claim of "WCAG 2.0 AAA" can be made if all level 1,
level 2, and all level 3 success criteria for all guidelines have been met.

Editorial 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." "A+" is a proposal that allows developers to
say, "I do more than A but not all of AA." However, some members of the WCAG
WG have issues with the idea of having any "+" conformance claims such as A+
or AA+.

*	How should conformance claims state which guidelines are met? in
metadata? in a site accessibility statement? some other method?
*	How should conformance claims state how many Level 2 criteria are
met? In metadata? With A+n (n=number of AA criteria met)? In a site
accessibility statement? Some other method?
*	If A+ is claimed, should we require a statement about which criteria
are met?
*	Is there a separate logo for each level: A, A+, and AA? If so,what
does the logo point to?
*	Comparisons of A+ conformance claims can not be made unless detailed
information is provided about the criteria 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
becomes less 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 "A+n" where "n" denotes the number of
criteria that are met, some developers report that they would be encouraged
to meet more criteria 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 "A+2" could be more accessible
than a site that claims "A+3" depending on which criteria are met.
*	There is a proposal that to meet AAA only a percentage of Level 3
success criteria must be met. 


What a conformance claim must include


All conformance claims must include at least the following items: 

1.      The title and version of the guidelines document to which
conformance is claimed 

2.      the URI of the guidelines document.

3.      the publication date of the guidelines document

4.      The scope of the conformance claim. The scope describes which parts
of a site or application are included in the claim. 

Editorial 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?

5.      The level of conformance and any additional set of criteria for
which conformance is claimed.

6.      The date the conformance claim was made.


Conformance claims and the transition from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0


Sites that currently conform to WCAG 1.0 may make a qualified Qualified
conformance claim. For example, a Qualified Conformance claim Statement
might include the following statement : "Materials created or modified
before [publication date of WCAG 2.0 Recommendation]conform to WCAG 1.0.
Materials created or modified on or after [publication date of WCAG 2.0
Recommendation] conform to WCAG 2.0 at Level [x]."

Editorial 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.

</end proposed>

 

[1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-20040311/

 


"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/>
http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/

 

 
Received on Monday, 29 March 2004 13:47:54 UTC

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