W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > June 2007

Comment LC-1026

From: Gian Sampson-Wild <gian@tkh.com.au>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2007 23:24:50 +1000
To: "'Loretta Guarino Reid'" <lorettaguarino@google.com>
Cc: <public-comments-WCAG20@w3.org>
Message-ID: <003001c7b663$0e4774d0$b300a8c0@tkhcomputer>

Comment 7:

Source: http://www.w3.org/mid/000901c69538$2e394450$f4c9b23a@tkhcomputer
(Issue ID: LC-1026)

Conformance schema - The documents say that all success criteria are
essential to people with disabilities (see WCAG 2.0 under 'Conformance' -
"The WCAG WG believes that all SC ..."), however by using the WCAG1
labelling system this change is not obvious. In addition to this, the
Conformance section specifically states a hierarchical nature to the to the
SC in WCAG2 by defining Level 1 as
"achiev(ing) a minimum level of accessibility", Level 2 as
"achiev(ing) an enhanced level of accessibility" and Level 3 as
"achiev(ing) additional accessibility enhancements". The Conformance section
is contradictory, because in the subsequent paragraph it says "Each
checkpoint in WCAG 1.0 was assigned a "priority" according to its impact on
accessibility... the system of checkpoints and priorities used in WCAG 1 has
been replaced...". By using the subjective terms Priority 1 / A in WCAG2,
the WG is implying that there is a hierarchical nature to the SC. People are
used to the WCAG1 labelling system and will assume that by following all
Level A SC that they are creating an accessible web site.

Proposed Change:

Merge Level 1 and Level 2 SC into one group called "Mandatory". Rename Level
3 to "Advisory" or "Optional"

Response from Working Group:

The working group feels that there are three categories of success criteria,
so we have retained three levels of conformance. The description of
conformance levels in WCAG 2 has been rewritten to clarify the levels. See
Response from GSW:
Please see my response to comment LC-1024.

I think you misinterpreted my comment. I was not arguing (in this comment)
for changing the numbers of levels I was arguing against the current
terminology. I was arguing that by using the WCAG1 terminology (which had a
hierarchical nature: Level A was more important than Level AA, which, in
turn, was more important than Level AAA), the WG was indicating that the SC
within WCAG2 had an inherent hierarchical nature - which is not the case:
the WG has said very clearly that each and every SC (whether in Level A or
Level AAA) may be integral to a site being accessible to people with

Seeing as WCAG2 does not employ a hierarchical level set like WCAG1 then it
should not use the hierarchical methodology of WCAG1. I recommend using
Level X, Level Y and Level Z or Level P, Level Q and Level R, or even Level
~, Level ^ and Level &. Or you could use Level Blue, Level Green and Level
Red. Whatever the WG chooses should not have an inherent hierarchical
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2007 13:25:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:08 UTC