- From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 16:21:57 -0500
- 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 UTC