W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2005

RE: Issues and proposals: conformance claims

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:55:06 -0500
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B7AE115@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Tim Boland" <frederick.boland@nist.gov>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Tim asked:
 
<blockquote>
Also, is there a commonly-agreed upon definition for "baseline
</blockquote>
 
Tim, see the proposal from Loretta Guarino, et al. re Guideline 4.2.  That message includes a proposed definition of "baseline."
 
The message is at 
 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0015.html
 
John

"Good design is accessible design." 
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/> 


 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tim Boland
	Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 8:33 am
	To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
	Subject: Re: Issues and proposals: conformance claims
	
	
	Section 1.2 of QA SpecGL [1] discusses providing the wording for conformance claims as a good practice (1.2 Good Practice A).   Techniques, as well, as several conformance claim templates (Forms 1 and 2) are given.   It is also mentioned that conformance claims are closely related to issues of logos and branding (see QA Handbook [2]).   
	
	1.2 Good Practice B of QA SpecGL discusses providing an Implementation Conformance Statement proforma
	 
	1.2 Good Practice C of QA SpecGL discusses requiring an Implementation Conformance Statement as part of valid conformance claims.  
	
	Would any of the previous be useful input into the current WCAG discussions?
	
	Also, is there a commonly-agreed upon definition for "baseline" (see reference following)?   What about "profiles"?   QA Framework [1] Glossary defines "profile" as "a subset of a technology that is tailored to meet specific functional requirements of a particular application community".
	Is that how WCAG defines "profile"?  I couldn't find definition for "profile" (or "baseline") in WCAG2.0 Glossary
	
	Also, a Web resource may include multiple technologies, so would there be a different conformance claim for each technology included in a Web resource?   Shouldn't a conformance claim be able to be made for a Web resource (even if the resource includes more than one technology)?
	
	ATAG2.0 WD [3] discusses "conformance profiles" - another possible input into discussion?
	
	[1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/
	
	[2]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-qa-handbook-20041122/  
	
	[3]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-20041122/#Conformance-Claim 
	
	At 10:12 PM 4/5/2005 -0400, you wrote:
	

		At last week's telecon [1] there were several ideas that seemed to resonate with everyone.¬  Ben and I took them as "requirements" for our work on conformance claims. A summary: 

		1.	Conformance claims should be based on technology not user agent(s). 
		2.	Technology name and version is required; user agent information is optional. 
		3.	The claim should be simple to make. Providing a template or examples of common "profiles" would aid simplicity.¬  Common "profiles" or "baselines" could be documented and referenced in claims. 
		4.	Audience information could be included in a claim. 
		5.	Include enough information in the conformance claim such that a 3rd party can verify the claim.¬  [We conclude this means that some technique-related information must be provided, although we didn't sketch out how this would work. We hope to discuss this on Thursday.] 
		6.	Conformance claims may include other optional assumptions. 

		[1] <http://www.w3.org/2005/03/31-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item06> 
		
		Here is a potential "template"¬  based on the "Conformance profiles" in UAAG 1.0 <http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/conformance.html#conformance-profiles> 
		
		A conformance claim includes the following assertions: 

		1.	Required: The date of the claim. 
		2.	Required: The guidelines title/version: "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" 
		3.	Required: The URI of the guidelines: ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬ ¬  http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-WCAG20-YYYYMMDD/ 
		4.	Required: The conformance level satisfied: "A", "AA", or "AAA" (or 1, 2, or 3??) 
		5.	Required: A list of the specifications used to create the content for which the claim is being made.¬  This includes markup languages, style sheet languages, scripting/programming languages,¬  image formats, and multimedia formats. 
		6.	Required: For each specification, indication if the technology is "used" or "relied upon" (i.e., if used - the content is usable if that technology is turned off or not supported. if relied upon - the content is not usable if that technology is turned off or not supported) 
		7.	Required: Scope of the claim (a uri, list of uris or a regular expression) 
		8.	Optional: A list of user agents that the content has been tested on.¬  This should include assistive technologies. 
		9.	Optional: Information about audience assumptions or target audience.¬  This could include language, geographic information,¬  interests or ??? 

		Examples of conformance claims 
		
		Example 1:¬  On 13 March 2005,¬  johnpointer.com¬  conforms to W3C's WCAG 2.0. Conformance Level A. The specification that this content relies upon is: XHTML 1.0. The specifications that this content uses are: CSS2,¬  Real Video, Real Audio,¬  MP3, and gif.¬ ¬  This content was tested using the following user agents and assistive technologies: Firefox 1.01 (windows, linux), IE 3.0 and 6.0 (windows, mac), Jaws 3.7 and Jaws 6.0 (windows), Safari 1.2 (Mac), Opera 7.5 (OSX). 
		
		Example 2:¬  On 1 January 2005, "S5: An Introduction" <http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/s5/s5-intro.html> conforms to W3C's WCAG 2.0. Conformance Level A.¬  The specification that this content relies upon is: XHTML 1.0 (Strict). The specifications that this content uses are: JavaScript 1.2, CSS2, png, and jpg. 
		
		Example 3:¬  On 1 January 2005, "Photo gallery application" <http://foo.makeyourownslideshow.com <http://foo.makeyourownslideshow.com/> > conforms to W3C's WCAG 2.0.¬  Conformance Level A.¬  The specifications that this content relies upon are: XHTML 1.0 (Strict), CSS2, JavaScript 1.2, jpg.¬  The specification that this content uses is: gif.¬  The techniques profile that this site uses is, "HTML/ECMAScript for latest browsers."¬  [Note: This techniques profile is not defined, but it was something that we had talked about. See "Questions and issues" that follow.]
		
		Questions and issues:
		During last week's discussion and per proposals on the mailing list there is a potential requirement that¬  "technologies should meet minimum conditions" (ala Jason's proposal at [2]). However, as part of techniques we would need to clearly indicate "repair techniques" and perhaps build a mapping (or a list) of techniques that we recommend for a suggested baseline.¬  For example: for a baseline aimed at a wide audience we recommend avoiding accesskey since it is not widely supported by browsers and assistive technologies.
		[2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0679.html>
		
		Thoughts? Questions? Issues?
		
		Best,
		--wendy
		
		
		-- 
		wendy a chisholm
		world wide web consortium
		web accessibility initiative
		http://www.w3.org/WAI/
		/--
		
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 13:55:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:39:36 UTC