W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > June 2006

clarifications on Comment LC-1007

From: Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:26:53 -0500
Message-ID: <44A1A29D.9000603@w3.org>
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Cc: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>, Gregg Vanderheiden <po@trace.wisc.edu>


Please seen below for clarifications on:  http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/issue-tracking/search_results.php?terms=1007&submit=Search+All


The top part of the comment with notes on the purpose of the different WCAG 2.0 documents provides some rationale (and includes notes for the discussion within EOWG). Please consider that top part the "Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):" In particular, note the paragraph under "Proposed Change:"
The main change from what is in the current WCAG 2.0 documents and above is moving out of the main /TR/WCAG20 document Comparison with WCAG 1.0, explanatory examples, and other details. In addition to simplifying the normative doc, this puts the explanatory information where it can be updated to reflect changes over time as necessary. It also limits the need for repetition across documents (e.g., now some information in /TR/WCAG20 Conformance is repeated in About Baselines, and not at all in Understanding). I think it also would ensure that people donít miss important information. (Since it becomes clear that the /TR/WCAG20 only contains the standards, and all other info is in Understanding.)

Please consider the second part of the comment as the "Proposed Change:". That is:
propose moving the following sections out of /TR/WCAG20 Conformance: 

I. Move into a new "Baselines" section of "Understanding": 
a. Under Who sets baselines?: 
There are several reasons for this. First, what is appropriate in a baseline may differ for different environments. For example, in the case of content that will be viewed only by employees of a particular company, it may be possible to assume that user agents support more advanced technologies if the company provides the necessary user agents (including assistive technology) to all employees. For public Websites, however, a more conservative level of technology may be all that can be reasonably assumed. Baselines may also vary by jurisdiction. Finally, the level of technology that can be assumed to be supported by accessible user agents will certainly change over time. 

Some examples of baselines: 

Example 1: A government site that provides information to the public. A government agency publishes information intended for the general public. The specified baseline includes only technologies that have been widely supported by more than one accessible and affordable user agent for more than one release. The government periodically changes the baseline it requires for developers of public sites to reflect the increasing ability of affordable user agents (including assistive technology) to work with newer technologies. 

Example 2: A particular government provides high level accessible user agents to all citizens who need them. A government provides all citizens with user agents that support newer technologies. The government is thus able to specify a baseline that includes these newer technologies for all of its Websites for its citizens since the government can assume its citizens' user agents can handle the technologies. 

Example 3: A private intranet. An organization (public or private) provides its employees with the information technology tools they need to do their jobs. The baseline for intranet sites used only by employees includes newer technologies that are supported only by the user agent that the organization provides for its employees. Because the company controls the user agents that will view its internal content, the author has a very accurate knowledge of the technologies that those user agents (including assistive technologies) support. 

Note: In the examples above, the baseline is not specified in terms of specific user agents but rather in terms of the Web content technologies that are supported and enabled in those user agents (including assistive technologies). 

b. All of Examples of conformance claims: 
Examples of conformance claims 

Example 1: On 23 March 2005, http://www.wondercall.example.com conforms to W3C's WCAG 2.0, Conformance Level A. The baseline for this claim is XHTML 1.0. The specification that this content "relies upon" is: HTML 4.01. The specifications that this content "uses but does not rely on" are: CSS2, and gif. This content was tested using the following user agents and assistive technologies: Firefox 1.5 on Windows 2000 SP4 with Jaws 7.0, Firefox 1.5 on Windows XP SP 2 with Jaws 7.0, IE 6.0 on Windows 2000 SP4 with Jaws 4.51, IE 6.0 on Windows 2000 SP4 with Jaws 7.0, and Firefox 1.5 on Windows XP SP2 with Jaws 7.0, Safari 2.0 with OS X 10.4. 

Example 2: On 5 May 2006, "G7: An Introduction" http://telcor.example.com/nav/G7/intro.html conforms to W3C's WCAG 2.0. Conformance Level Double-A. The following additional success criteria have also been met: 1.1.2, 1.2.5, and 1.4.3. The baseline for this claim is UDBaseline#1-2006 at http://UDLabs.org/Baseline#1-2006.html. The specification that this content "relies upon" is: XHTML 1.0 (Strict), and Real Video. The specifications that this content "uses but does not rely on" are: JavaScript 1.2, CSS2. 

Example 3: On 21 June 2007, http://example.com/nav and http://example.com/docs conform to W3C's WCAG 2.0, Conformance Triple-A. The baseline is ISA-Baseline#2-2007 at http://ISA.example.gov/Baselines/BL2-2007. The specifications that this content "relies upon" are: XHTML 1.0 (Strict), CSS2, JavaScript 1.2, jpeg, png. " The technologies this content has been tested with can be found at http://example.com/docs/WCAG20/test/technologies.html. 

c. All of Content that conforms to WCAG 1.0: 

Content that conforms to WCAG 1.0 

This Working Draft of WCAG 2.0 builds upon WCAG 1.0 and reflects feedback received since the publication of WCAG 1.0 in May 1999. 

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group is working to ensure that organizations and individuals who are currently using WCAG 1.0 (which remains stable and normative at this time) will be able to smoothly transition to WCAG 2.0. For more information about the similarities and differences between WCAG 1.0 Checkpoints and WCAG 2.0 Guidelines and success criteria, please refer to the (draft) Mapping between WCAG 1.0 and the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft. 

Authors whose content currently conforms to WCAG 1.0 may wish to capitalize on past accessibility efforts when making the transition to WCAG 2.0. A qualified conformance statement could allow them this flexibility. For example, a conformance claim might include the following statement: "Materials with creation or modification dates before 31 December 2006 conform to WCAG 1.0. Materials with creation or modification dates after 31 December 2006 conform to WCAG 2.0.

II. Move to Document #7 [Background, or WG Notes, or History, or Q&A] above: 

"This method of grouping success criteria differs in important ways from the approach taken in WCAG 1.0. Each checkpoint in WCAG 1.0 was assigned a "priority" according to its impact on accessibility. Thus, Priority 3 checkpoints appeared to be less important than Priority 1 checkpoints. The WCAG Working Group now believes that all success criteria of WCAG 2.0 are essential for some people. Thus, the system of checkpoints and priorities used in WCAG 1.0 has been replaced by success criteria under Levels 1, 2, and 3 as described above. Note that even conformance to all three levels will not make Web content accessible to all people."

Also note: The top part with the discussion of the documents I refined further since the EOWG discussion, added some specific change proposals, and submitted in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-comments-wcag20/2006Jun/0224.html
Received on Tuesday, 27 June 2006 21:27:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:14:41 UTC