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

RE: Conformance Level Clarification

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:41:11 -0600
To: "'Chris Ridpath'" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>, <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
Cc: "'John M Slatin'" <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>, "'WAI WCAG List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <auto-000219098019@spamarrest.com>

Hi Chris,

   There will be some way to capture good ideas that are not required.  For
now we are gathering them.  Until we have them all though I'm not sure that
we can decide exactly how we should handle them.   So do NOT toss them.
Hold on to them so we can see how best to handle them when we get to that
point. 

Also remember that everything is still in recommendation stage from the task
force to the working group.  So keep notes on comments pro and con since
they will all have to come up to the working group as part of the task force
recommendations.  Work through Michael on this. 

 
Gregg

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Ridpath [mailto:chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2005 3:22 PM
To: jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au; Gregg Vanderheiden
Cc: 'John M Slatin'; 'WAI WCAG List'
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 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 21:41:26 GMT

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