W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-silver@w3.org > April 2019

Partial conformance

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2019 20:07:22 +0000
To: "public-silver@w3.org" <public-silver@w3.org>
Message-ID: <AM5PR0902MB2002E8B225F19373698F36D7B92C0@AM5PR0902MB2002.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com>
Hi everyone,

I was just catching up from the minutes of the meeting (tip o' the hat to the scribe!), and on the partial conformance section.

I appreciate that the conformance model isn't there enough to define how it would work yet, but there are three stated aspects of the conformance model in the 1.2.2 section, would it fit there?

Taking a step back, the question is: How does a large site realistically demonstrate some level of conformance?

It is a valid question that I think should be addressed in the requirements doc *somehow*, but I don't know whether it should be part of the conformance opportunities section, a requirement, or a design principle.

As an opportunity it could be something like:

  *   Scalable measures: Where some guidelines can be tested across large areas of a website (e.g. the interface enforces and guides end-users to create useful alt text) that can be used for large and frequently updated sites to claim a partial conformance for many pages, so long as the task based testing is also completed.

That could be preventative (authoring tool based) and/or scanning for issues across a site. I'm never going to be the person that says automated testing is the 1st thing to do, but it definitely has its place.

Or this aspect could come under 3.6 Regulatory environment, add another bullet such as:

  *   Conformance should be flexible enough to work for small and very large sites.

I think it's worth including somewhere.

Kind regards,



www.nomensa.com<http://www.nomensa.com/> / @alastc
Received on Monday, 8 April 2019 20:07:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:31:45 UTC