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

Re: Conformance Level Clarification

From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:21:57 -0500
Message-ID: <253101c5146d$8bd3ee00$e29a968e@WILDDOG>
To: <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>, "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: "'John M Slatin'" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, "'WAI WCAG List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

OK. The current conformance level model stays. It flows from:
Principle to Guideline to Conformance Level to Success Criteria to Test
Materials.

Some of the conformance testing materials will not fit within the narrow
definition of the SCs but they are still useful.

It would be a shame to just throw them in the ocean and forget about them.
But where should these materials be placed?

There's been discussion about creating an "optional" or "best practices"
category to hold these things. Items in the "optional" category would not be
required for conformance but are useful for increasing accessibility. Is
there still interest in creating an "optional" category?

Another option is to keep these materials outside of WAI to avoid confusion
with the WCAG conformance materials. It could confuse people to see a list
of things that we know increase accessibility but they're not required by
the WCAG. These materials could be rolled back into our ATRC Open
Accessibility Checks[1] site where we can keep track of them.

How do people feel - keep these things at WAI under an "optional" category
or move them to another site?

Cheers,
Chris

[1] http://oac.atrc.utoronto.ca
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2005 21:23:37 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:35 GMT