W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: Proposal: Simplified presentation of conformance model

From: Jon Gunderson <jongund@uiuc.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2000 09:24:57 -0600
Message-Id: <>
To: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>, w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
I think this covers the groups current consensus on conformance.  I agree 
you should add it to next draft.


At 08:38 AM 12/28/2000 -0500, Ian Jacobs wrote:
>Don't be scared off by the word "conformance" in the
>subject of this message. I believe this proposal simplifies
>the UAAG 1.0 conformance scheme. It does not stray far from
>what we have already defined, and is, I believe, a clearer
>The model works as follows:
>1) By default, a user agent must satisfy all checkpoints
>    in the document in order to conform.
>2) It is possible to reduce the "scope of a claim" [new term]
>    in three ways:
>    a) Specifying a conformance level. A conformance level is
>       a labeled subset of checkpoints.
>    b) Specifying one or more content type labels (more labeled
>       subsets).
>    c) Specifying input modality labels (still more labeled
>       subsets). [Note: Input modality labels still a work in
>       progress...]
>    (These are the three mechanisms we have chosen to
>     increase the granularity of conformance claims.)
>3) By default, all checkpoints *within the scope of a claim*
>    apply. A checkpoint that is in scope does not apply
>    if any of three conditions are met. (Note: We may delete one
>    based on some last call comments.)
>Why distinguish a checkpoint that is out of scope
>from one that does not apply?
>  - A checkpoint that is out of scope is simply not part of a
>  claim. The claim makes *no statement* about whether this
>  checkpoint is satisfied or not. It is possible, for example,
>  that a user agent would satisfy some, but not all, checkpoints
>  for the "video" content type label. The label "video" would not
>  appear in the claim, but the user agent would still satisfy
>  some of the checkpoints.
>  - A checkpoint that doesn't apply *is* part of a claim. The
>    claim states explicitly that the user agent *does not*
>    satisfy this checkpoint (for if it did, then the checkpoint
>    would clearly apply).
>I think it's worthwhile making this distinction. I also think
>that doing so simplifies the presentation of the material and
>the definition of applicable.
>Continuing the model (essentially unchanged):
>4) A well-formed claim must include information about both
>    the scope of the claim, and for those checkpoints in scope,
>    which ones are not considered to apply. (A well-formed claim
>    must also include information about the version of UAAG
>    and the date of the claim.)
>5) A claim is valid if:
>    a) Well-formed, and
>    b) The subject of the claim as a whole satisfies all
>       the applicable checkpoints that are in the scope
>       of the claim.
>That's the model. Because I do not consider this a substantial
>change from the existing conformance model (only a clarification
>and simplification), I intend to integrate this into the next draft
>for Working Group review.
>  - Ian
>Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
>Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
>Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248

E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu

WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua
Received on Thursday, 28 December 2000 10:23:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:49:29 UTC