Re: UAAG 2 partial conformance options (Action 704)

On the topic of conformance claims and the proposal for types of "partial conformance", I'm willing to defer to the group.

However, the current proposals are not how I'd do it. For example, if some SC don't apply to a particular user agent because it only uses constrained input, I consider it to conform, rather than partially conform.

So, if I were going to come up with a UAAG20 compliance scheme myself, what would I do? Here's one approach that I like.


My goal here is to maximize information that would be useful to users, purchasing agents, etc.


      Answers for SC


My goal here is to maximize information that would be useful to users, purchasing agents, etc.


For each SC or sub-criteria, the claimant would give one of the following answers:

 1. *C: *Compliant:
     1. *C-Default:* fully compliant by default
     2. *C-Configurable:* can be configured to be fully compliant using only documented and supported techniques, and only included components (included components must be shipped or downloaded with the product, but do not need to be installed by default)
     3. *C-Available: *can be configured to be fully compliant using only documented and supported techniques, with the addition of separately-available components that are available free of cost (citing at least one specific example)
     4. *C-Commercial*: can be configured to be fully compliant using only documented and supported techniques, but requiring additional costs (e.g. commercially available add-ons or tools, or paid upgrade to a higher level of service) (citing at least one specific example).
 2. *NA:* Not Applicable:
     1. *NA-Component:* not applicable to the limited functionality provided by this user agent component, plug-in, or extension (e.g. SC relating to rendering content would not apply to a browser extension that adds additional menu commands but does not itself render any content)
     2. *NA-Input:* not applicable due to a constrained input set (e.g. an application that reads flight data in XML format from a corporate server, or a help system that only displays HTML files included with the product)
     3. *NA-Platform:* not applicable due constraints of the platform (e.g. color handling when the browser is run on a monochrome device, audio handling on a silent device, video handling on a interactive voice response browser, or interprocess communication on an operating system that does not support multitasking)
     4. *NA-Desgn:* not applicable due to intentionally limited output modalities (e.g. video handling in a browser that only does audio output even though the platform might support video)
 3. *NC:* Not Compliant:
     1. *NC-Potential:* not compliant but in theory a third party could make it compliant using documented and supported techniques (e.g. the product's extension architecture readily allows adding the required feature; this is also allowed if the source is made available and the claimant believes it could be modified to add compliance with less than one person-week of effort, thus giving incentive for open source
     2. *NC-Unsupported:* may be compliant but not using documented and supported techniques
     3. *NC-Impossible:* not compliant even with undocumented and unsupported techniques

Note that Compliant and Not Applicable are both considered "Passing", while Not Compliant is considered "Failing".

*For a composite SC* (one composed of multiple sub-criteria) the answer would be the lowest Compliant or Non-Compliant level of any of the sub-criteria. (Not Applicable answers are ignored in this calculation.) For example, SC 1.8.6 requires the user be able to zoom in to at least 500% and out to at least 10%. A web browser supports this zoom range, and while its built-in user interface provides predefined zoom levels that go up to 500% but down only to 25%, an extension is available that adds menu commands that extend the range down to 10%. Thus, it passes the first sub-criteria with C-Default and the second with SC-Available, so the answer for the entire SC would be the lower of the two, in this case SC-Available. If it was not possible to write such an extension, the answer for the entire SC would be NC-Impossible.

(I decided against including separate answer of *PC: Partially Compliant*, which would only apply to an SC that is composed of several sub-criteria, because that answer would make it difficult to "bubble up" the lowest compliance level to the entire product or component. Instead, we'll count failing any one sub-criterion as meaning the product fails the entire SC. I would certainly not want to "bubble up" a Partially Compliant answer to be the compliance level for an entire product or component, as almost all products would end up with that level.)


      Conformance Claims for Products

The claim summary includes:

 1. (optional) *Compliance Percentages: *Percentage of SC at each level with which the product answers Compliant or Not Applicable (e.g. "A 100%/AA 72%/AAA 25%")
 2. (required) *Compliance Level: *Highest Priority Level for which the product lists all SC as Compliant or Not Applicable, and the lowest compliance category for among those SC that claim compliance (e.g. "Fully compliant at Level A with commercially available components" or other wording suggestions below)
 3. (required) *List of configuration changes and/or separately-available components* that are required to achieve the claimed level of conformance, including which SC requires each

SampleCompliance Level claim wording (with "A" being replaced by "AA" or "AAA" as needed):

 1. Level A Compliant (by default)
 2. Level A Compliant when propertly configured using documented and supported techniques, and included components
 3. Level A Compliant when propertly configured using documented and supported techniques, and additional components available free of charge
 4. Level A Compliant when propertly configured using documented and supported techniques, additional components or services but requires additional expense
 5. Not Level A Compliant, but potentially could be made compliant by a third party
 6. Not Level A Compliant, but access may be possible using undocumented or unsupported techniques
 7. Not Level A Compliant

Alternatively, here are some more verbose variations:

"This [user agent|user agent component|web-based user agent] complies with all applicable Level [A|AA|AAA] success criteria...

oin its default configuration."

owhen propertly configured using documented and supported techniques. No additional components or services are required."

owhen propertly configured using documented and supported techniques. Additional components are required, but they are available free of charge."

owhen propertly configured using documented and supported techniques. However, additional components or services are required, and may require additional expense."

"This [user agent|user agent component|web-based user agent] fails to comply with some or all applicable Level [A|AA|AAA] success criteria...

obut potentially could be made compliant by a third party"

obut access may be possible using undocumented or unsupported techniques."

o."



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: UAAG 2 partial conformance options (Action 704)
From: Richards, Jan <jrichards@ocadu.ca>
To: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org <w3c-wai-ua@w3.org>
Date: 12/19/2012 1:24 PM
> I have:
> ACTION-704: Propose a type of partial conformance for mobile apps that are actually packaged user agents that display limited types of content
> http://www.w3.org/WAI/UA/tracker/actions/704
>
> My proposal is to allow apps to not meet certain SC by claiming that the content they are designed to display is so constrained that the accessibility feature required by the SC is not relevant. For example, if an airline's app knows it will only be rendering textual information (e.g. schedules) via a built in browser component, the browser component does not have to support SC such as: 1.2.1 Support Repair by Assistive Technologies; 1.1.5 Size and Position of Time-Based Media Alternatives; etc. etc.
>
> Partial UAAG 2.0 Conformance - Constrained Content (Level A, AA, or AAA)
> ---
> This conformance option may be selected when the user agent is deployed such that it can only be used to display a tightly constrained set of content (e.g. as part of a mobile app that only displays text messages). The conformance claim must list those success criteria  which are judged not applicable due to the nature of the constrained content.
>
>
> ATAG2 also includes a couple of "Partial Conformance" types that might be usefully adapted:
>
> Partial UAAG 2.0 Conformance - User Agent Component (Level A, AA, or AAA)
> ---
> This conformance option may be selected when a user agent would require additional user agent functionality in order to conform as a complete user agent. This option may be used for components with very limited functionality (e.g. a plug-in) up to nearly complete systems (e.g. a user agent that only lacks mouseless browsing).
>
> The level of conformance (A, AA, or AAA) is determined as above except that, for any "no" answers, the user agent must not prevent the success criteria from being met by another user agent component as part of a complete user agent system.
>
> Note: User agents would not be able to meet partial conformance if they prevent additional user agent components from meeting the failed success criteria (e.g., for security reasons).
>
>
> Partial UAAG 2.0 Conformance - Platform Limitations (Level A, AA, or AAA)
> ---
> This conformance option may be selected when a user agent is unable to meet one or more success criteria because of intrinsic limitations of the platform (e.g., lacking a platform accessibility service). The conformance should explain what platform features are missing.
>
>
>
>
>
> (MR) JAN RICHARDS
> PROJECT MANAGER
> INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)
> OCAD UNIVERSITY
>
> T 416 977 6000 x3957
> F 416 977 9844
> E jrichards@ocadu.ca
>
>
>