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

Re: Conformance Level Clarification

From: <lguarino@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:28:07 -0800
To: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Cc: "'WAI WCAG List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-id: <4c73514c5cc7.4c5cc74c7351@adobe.com>

Chris,
  It seems like we should be looking at these tests to see if there are SC or Guidelines that we should add.
Loretta

----- Original Message -----
From: Chris Ridpath <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>
Date: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 1:21 pm
Subject: Re: Conformance Level Clarification

> 
> OK. The current conformance level model stays. It flows from:
> Principle to Guideline to Conformance Level to Success Criteria to 
> TestMaterials.
> 
> 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 
> confusionwith 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" 
> categoryor move them to another site?
> 
> Cheers,
> Chris
> 
> [1] http://oac.atrc.utoronto.ca
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2005 21:28:10 GMT

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