W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > July to September 2009

Re: Statement of Parital Conformance

From: Christophe Strobbe <christophe.strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be>
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2009 17:08:19 +0200
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20090810170618.03ce2210@esat.kuleuven.be>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org

At 16:32 10/08/2009, Chris Reeve wrote:
>The IT Team and my boss is thinking it maybe a good time to ask 
>about Parital Conformance 
>at 
><http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#conformance-partial>http://www.w3.org/TR/2008/REC-WCAG20-20081211/#conformance-partial. 
>The company site fails (3.2.4 Consistent ID, and maybe 2.4.4 for 
>downlodable documents). I said maybe, because no member of the IT 
>team is sure about 2.4.4 for downlodable documents.
>
>However, if these two Sucession Criteria passed, I would reach 
>conformance AA.
>
>If we end up with a sufficient technique for 3.2.4, but not for 
>2.4.4, for downlodable documents, what circumstances can we use to 
>say "partial conformance", eventhough 2.4.4 could be a failure 
>rather than stating the site failed.

One think to keep in mind is that a statement of partial conformance 
is not a conformance statement, it is a statement of non-conformance.

Best regards,

Christophe



-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Dept. of Electrical Engineering - SCD
Research Group on Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 bus 2442
B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee
BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/
---
"Better products and services through end-user empowerment" 
http://www.usem-net.eu/
---
Please don't invite me to LinkedIn, Facebook, Quechup or other 
"social networks". You may have agreed to their "privacy policy", but 
I haven't.
Received on Monday, 10 August 2009 15:09:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:14:32 GMT