W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2006

RE: WCAG 2.0 Conformance Proposals for 30 November 2006

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 10:32:13 -0600
To: "'Bailey, Bruce'" <Bruce.Bailey@ed.gov>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005901c71954$16c6e7f0$c117a8c0@NC84301>
Thanks Bruce.


Couple of suggested solutions.


The CC are Conformance Criteria.  You MUST do them to conform.  So we can't
have a CC-9 that is advisory.   

We did however try to include this as conformance note #2 which  says

2 Non-conforming pages: It is recommended that even non-conforming pages
conform to the extent that they can.

But I see we missed - since this only says "pages"


How about 

 2 Non-conforming Content: It is recommended that even non-conforming
content conform to the extent that it can.



Also we are proposing to add to the claims section something like:

Progress toward conformance

Authors who have created content that does not yet conform fully to a
particular WCAG 2.0 conformance level are encouraged to publish a statement
on progress toward conformance. This statement would be the same as a
conformance claim except that it would specify which success criteria have
been met. It may also be useful to include a list of success criteria not
yet met in a progress statement.

(see comment from Caldwell)


 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 




From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Bailey, Bruce
Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2006 5:28 AM
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Subject: WCAG 2.0 Conformance Proposals for 30 November 2006

This is feedback with regard to:

The document is really good, my hat is off to the folks pulling this
together.  It is hard work.

I find this tweaked version (as compared to early last week) to be more
readable, and the ordering of the CC seems to flow more logically.
(Admittedly, this is probably due as much to my having read it a few
more times.)

Associating each CC with a number still seems somewhat arbitrary to me.
Given all the other numbering involved, it gets confusing.  Something like
CC-AeWT is less obscure than referring to CC-1.  (Not that CC-AeWT is
intuitive to the uninitiated, but still.)  My comments in the survey reflect

I think there is something missing from the Conformance Proposal in that the
most accessible web sites will use certain technology but *not* rely upon
them.  That is, the technology will be used, quite probably to good effect,
but deliberately *not* in the baseline.  WCAG 2.0 does nothing, as far as I
can tell, to reward or honor this desirable best practice.

WCAG 1.0 gave explicit credit for supporting text-only browsers.  As best I
can tell, providing robust Lynx compatibility does not satisfy any Success
Criteria with WCAG 2.0.  Two good examples of what I mean are CSS and

WCAG 1.0 had Priority 1 Checkpoint 6.1:  "Organize documents so they may be
read without style sheets."

There is lots of "graceful degradation" in WCAG 2.0, and plenty of
applicability for making appropriate accessible use of style sheets, but
nothing that goes as far as 6.1 -- not even as a Level 3 SC.

A similar line of reason lies to NOFRAMES.  If frame sets are in the
baseline, there is no call for NOFRAME content.  I remind folks of this
opinion from Gregory Rosmaita:
the only way to ensure alternate browsing in a non-visual environment is to
mandate the provision of robust NOFRAMES content, and THAT my friends, is a
screaming, flaming, indisputable P1

It is bad form to complain without offering remedy.  I therefor propose
CC-Gold (CC-9 if the numbers stick):

CC-9 Above and Beyond:  Content providers are encouraged to delineate any
advisory techniques or other best practices they have implemented on their

Editorial comments:

Web page is used as an example of what is meant by a Web page?

Example 2: A Web page including all embedded images and media.
Example 2: An HTML page including any and all embedded images and media.

Title of file (WCAG 2.0) is ambiguous.

Style of link to "Understanding Conformance Claims" immediately following
"Conformance claims" is off.
Received on Wednesday, 6 December 2006 16:32:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 16 January 2018 15:34:01 UTC