Re: What does WCAG mean by "a set of Web units"

On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 09:07:17PM -0500, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote:
> Hmmmm
> Interesting. 
> 
>  We can't use claim - since there may not be one. 
> 
> A hypothesized claim at first seems arbitrary.  But if you think about it -
> one could say...  If one is claiming level x conformance for the children's
> portion of this website then .... etc.   
> 
> Since you are hypothesizing conformance to start with (since there is no
> claim) then one could hypothesize scope too.
Exactly, and that's all one can do in the absence of a claim (whether
published or otherwise). I agree it is possible for a set of Web units to fail
to conform at a given level, whereas a proper subset would pass. However,
that's always true. The Web as a whole fails to conform, but important subsets
of it satisfy the guidelines and are therefore more accessible than the
remainder.

I don't think there is a problem here. Every assessment of conformance is
carried out with respect to a scope, i.e., a set of Web units; what that scope
is depends on a conformance claim, or in the absence of one, on the purpose of
the evaluation.