Use Cases for partial conformance

This is in response to Greg's email of 21 January:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JanMar/0010.html

and is based on followup discussion with Greg on 21 January and Jim on 
22 January. Notes from the conversation that Jim and I had:
http://www.w3.org/2013/01/22-ua-minutes.html

IMO, we are creating a complex partial conformance structure that could 
haunt us because we are trying to satisfy hypothetical edge cases.  I 
would like to propose that we list the user cases that partial 
conformance must satisfy, and that we find a solution for these use 
cases and not the edge cases. Greater complexity does not serve us in 
the long run, when people are trying to meet these guidelines. Please 
suggest additional use cases that I didn't remember.

What are the problems we are trying to solve with Partial Conformance?

Use Cases: (Full Conformance?)

1) full featured user agents who conform  (full regular conformance)

2) full featured user agents who are missing a few SC, but could conform 
with external extensions
   - After a lot of thought back and forth, I propose that we not 
address this as a needed use case, and leave it up to the browsers to 
acquire or license themselves what is needed for their product to be 
compliant. It's simpler and puts the responsibility where it belongs, on 
the vendor.

3) limited user agents who are constrained by the type of content they 
access -- e.g. media players
  - I propose that these be fully conformant based on the success 
criteria that apply to the content they render.  [See #7 in the Required 
Components of an UAAG Conformance claim quoted below]
  - I think this is where PDF readers would fit

4) standalone software that has a user agent component (e.g. Microsoft 
Word).
  - I propose that the user agent component has full conformance to 
UAAG, but the rest of the product can conform to different guidelines. 
(this addresses the problem of 3rd party Word macros)
- should it also apply to the Word interface wrapping the "browser" 
interface or should this specifically be excluded?

Use Cases: (Partial Conformance?)

5) Mobile apps with constrained content -- e.g. the "American Airlines" 
app.
- I think this is a moot point - apps are becoming increasingly media 
rich and full featured. Look at Facebook app or LinkedIn (HTML5 app). 
Mobile players with constrained media types (e.g. youtube players) are 
covered under use case 3) above with full conformance.

6) User agent component - an extension or plugin that is used in within 
a user agent to provide a feature needed to meet an SC, e.g. "mouseless 
browsing" extension to Firefox.  See Jan's proposal for partial conformance
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-ua/2013JanMar/0003.html
  - the extension might not meet UAAG in order to provide the necessary 
service.  Why would we include extensions in UAAG but not assistive 
technology?

7) User agent component - a full featured browser or player that is 
missing some SC but doesn't want to state a specific extension that 
could complete it.
  - I propose dropping this, and making the browsers responsible for 
meeting UAAG. See use case 2)

8) full or limited user agents who are dependent on the underlying 
platform for some SC.  See Jan's proposal for partial conformance.
- Could these be handled under full conformance by including an example 
in #7 below?

Did I forget any?
----------------

 From "Required Components of an UAAG Conformance Claim"
7. Declarations: For each success criterion: A declaration of whether or 
not the success criterion has been satisfied; or
A declaration that the success criterion is not applicable and a 
rationale for why not.

Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2013 22:39:43 UTC