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

RE: Conformance Level Clarification

From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 15:58:47 -0600
Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B7ADE20@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
To: "Chris Ridpath" <chris.ridpath@utoronto.ca>, <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>, "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Cc: "WAI WCAG List" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Chris wrote:
<blockquote>
OK. The current conformance level model  ... flows from: Principle to
Guideline to Conformance Level to Success Criteria to Test Materials.
</blockquote>

Beautifully put, Chris! That's really elegant.

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/


 



-----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 21:58:49 GMT

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