- From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2020 11:35:52 -0500
- To: Sheri Byrne Haber <sbyrnehaber@vmware.com>, Raph de Rooij <post@raph.nl>
- Cc: Frederick Boland <replymehere447@gmail.com>, Silver Task Force <public-silver@w3.org>, Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
- Message-ID: <f861240b-6255-4e49-b340-462a78e23048@w3.org>
Hi Raph, Sheri,
Bear in mind that these are the kinds of terms used within policy
settings to frame how technical standards are applied. Within a policy
setting, there is a role for having language that addresses the scope of
how something is applied.
What gets odd from my perspective is when one brings that kind of
scoping directly into a technical standard/guideline etc., and tries to
merge how accessibility is defined and tested, with how it may or may
not be interpreted and applied in policy settings. I say this with the
understanding that I know that there has been a lot of work already done
to define and propose a new conformance model, but lots more work still
to do on the model, but recent improvements in the conformance model may
mean that this is a good time to do more work on the naming.
In the meantime, I encourage caution on conformance model naming
possibilities that may blur the lines between AGWG work in W3C WAI, and
how WCAG may or may not be taken up in different policy settings around
the world. From my perspective, the term "substantial conformance" may
blur these two things, and probably terms including words such as
"reasonable" would as well.
Thanks,
- Judy
On 11/20/2020 11:06 AM, Sheri Byrne Haber wrote:
>
> “Reasonable” is definitely a loaded legal term in the US, our entire
> court system is based on reasonable doubt, reasonable efforts, and
> commercially reasonable.
>
> Not saying it isn’t an OK choice, just saying if that is the choice it
> needs to be with that understanding.
>
> Sheri
>
> *From:* Raph de Rooij <post@raph.nl>
> *Sent:* Friday, November 20, 2020 4:52 AM
> *To:* Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
> *Cc:* Frederick Boland <replymehere447@gmail.com>; Silver Task Force
> <public-silver@w3.org>; Wilco Fiers <wilco.fiers@deque.com>
> *Subject:* Re: [{TBD} Conformance] Minutes for 19 November
>
> Hi all,
>
> May I suggest an alternative? The term "reasonable assurance" is well
> defined and commonly used in (financial and risk-based) auditing, in
> situations where absolute certainty cannot be provided.
>
> It may be suitable input in the search of an alternative for the term
> "substantial conformance". Reasonable assurance means that all
> prescribed auditing procedures in a system of quality control were
> followed */and/* that no deviations from the generally accepted
> accounting principles (GAAP) were found.
>
> A document about the subject that I collected eight years ago during a
> compliance management study appeared to be still available online [1].
>
> When checking the current relevance of reasonable assurance, I found a
> document from March 2020 [2] in which reasonable assurance was
> regarded as 'a core principle', which was 'strongly supported' 'in
> order to meet cost-benefit considerations'.
>
> The European Commission uses "presumption of conformity" in its web
> accessibility directive 2016/2102 [3].
>
> This term may be legally correct, but personally I'm not fond of it.
> Presumption does simply not provide a lot of certainty to those who
> are not familiar with the legal meaning of the term.
>
> _______
>
> [1] see
> https://pcaobus.org/News/Events/Documents/10052005_SAGMeeting/Reasonable_Assurance.pdf
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpcaobus.org%2FNews%2FEvents%2FDocuments%2F10052005_SAGMeeting%2FReasonable_Assurance.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Csbyrnehaber%40vmware.com%7C529611b58b9240581d8d08d88d56c91e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C1%7C637414751181234542%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=GObJ8MDrPEt1afEpetjEJIJup920x9oS2hCdEFVgQkA%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> [2] see https://pcaobus.org/Rulemaking/Docket046/026_Chamber.pdf
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpcaobus.org%2FRulemaking%2FDocket046%2F026_Chamber.pdf&data=04%7C01%7Csbyrnehaber%40vmware.com%7C529611b58b9240581d8d08d88d56c91e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C1%7C637414751181244537%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=m0JiD4vE%2BBtP6BYdRWodKC6eNwC2kRywIP%2FZW3aI2tQ%3D&reserved=0>
> page 2 /(H: Core Principles of Potential Approach)/ and page 4 /(H:
> Reasonable Assurance)/
>
> [3] see
> https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/dir/2016/2102/oj?locale=en#d1e846-1-1
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Feur-lex.europa.eu%2Feli%2Fdir%2F2016%2F2102%2Foj%3Flocale%3Den%23d1e846-1-1&data=04%7C01%7Csbyrnehaber%40vmware.com%7C529611b58b9240581d8d08d88d56c91e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C1%7C637414751181244537%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=jN8lLLl1qnEJe%2Be%2Bknq6qywb82YD6%2Ft0N4U3crHFWU4%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
> Raph de Rooij
> E: post@raph.nl <mailto:post@raph.nl>
> M: +31 6 45025236
>
> Op vr 20 nov. 2020 om 02:32 schreef Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org
> <mailto:jbrewer@w3.org>>:
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> I'm not sure whether the relevant question here is whether or not
> "substantial" is a legal term or not. In seeking a name that best
> conveys the work that has been done to define and propose a
> conformance model for next generation guidelines, I think we also
> need to think about what a proposed term conveys from a messaging
> perspective.
>
> With "substantial conformance" I'd be concerned that it gives more
> of an impression of additive conformance from a low bar, along the
> lines of "you can use a lot of parts of this website," or "you can
> use what we think are the important parts of this website," or "a
> lot of this site conforms to WCAG." I'd be concerned that it would
> be hard to overcome that impression even if backed by strong and
> precise testing criteria, and that this would impact people's
> expectations of the accessibility conformance model.
>
> It may turn out to be that there is no term that sets a clearer
> expectation. Or, it may turn out that the initial impression some
> people have that the term sets a low bar for accessibility is not
> a common perspective. But I'd like us to explore some other naming
> possibilities before confirming a term that might give a
> potentially fraught impression.
>
> - Judy
>
> On 11/19/2020 6:38 PM, Frederick Boland wrote:
>
> “Substantial” is a legal term – from FindLaw Legal Dictionary –
>
> 1a : of or relating to substance, b : not illusory : having
> merit [failed to raise a constitutional claim], c : having
> importance or significance : material [a step had not been
> taken towards commission of the crime “W.R. LaFave and A.W.
> Scott Jr”]
>
> 2. : considerable in quantity : significantly great [would be
> a abuse of the provisions of this chapter “U.S. Code”] compare
> de minimis
>
> Source: Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law 1996
>
> Also, I found an interesting article about measuring
> “substantially similar”:
>
> https://www.novoco.com/notes-from-novogradac/close-enough-how-measure-substantially-similar-under-fasbs-new-lihtc-investment-guidance
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.novoco.com%2Fnotes-from-novogradac%2Fclose-enough-how-measure-substantially-similar-under-fasbs-new-lihtc-investment-guidance&data=04%7C01%7Csbyrnehaber%40vmware.com%7C529611b58b9240581d8d08d88d56c91e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C1%7C637414751181254530%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=%2Bo1zYqK00fO1IDlaqPeKAmZ7CKSmRwoiWNbocFJbh1g%3D&reserved=0>
>
> Although in a different subject area, might provide some
> insight, even if the term “substantial” is not kept..
>
> On Thursday, November 19, 2020, 1:09:54 PM EST, Wilco Fiers
> <wilco.fiers@deque.com> <mailto:wilco.fiers@deque.com> wrote:
>
> Minutes from the [TBD] Conformance Silver subgroup teleconference:
>
> https://www.w3.org/2020/11/19-silver-conf-minutes.html
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2020%2F11%2F19-silver-conf-minutes.html&data=04%7C01%7Csbyrnehaber%40vmware.com%7C529611b58b9240581d8d08d88d56c91e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C1%7C637414751181254530%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=pAmKVk4XR3rV0Jrnf8YzUhx2nOD5Q3taoL9bLJryvWE%3D&reserved=0>
>
> Summary:
>
> - Discussed where/how to remove the phrase "substantial
> conformance"
>
> - Discussed principle 6, on numbers of bugs per website
>
> --
>
> *Wilco Fiers*
>
> Axe-core product owner - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair ACT-R
>
> Join me at axe-con
> <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fdeque.com%2Faxe-con&data=04%7C01%7Csbyrnehaber%40vmware.com%7C529611b58b9240581d8d08d88d56c91e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C1%7C637414751181264524%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=WcZNjbA4MGAo4V6T2AnKtkjC7%2BxyM3JcxBbJHRdd%2FWk%3D&reserved=0>2021:
> a free digital accessibility conference.
>
> --
>
> Judy Brewer
>
> Director, Web Accessibility Initiative
>
> at the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
>
> 105 Broadway, Room 7-128, MIT/CSAIL
>
> Cambridge MA 02142 USA
>
> www.w3.org/WAI/ <https://nam04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2FWAI%2F&data=04%7C01%7Csbyrnehaber%40vmware.com%7C529611b58b9240581d8d08d88d56c91e%7Cb39138ca3cee4b4aa4d6cd83d9dd62f0%7C0%7C1%7C637414751181264524%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&sdata=66lTjR7yFMDgTPXbzJdyhzXlMBkcriYtC9Wb3XWKdSY%3D&reserved=0>
>
--
Judy Brewer
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative
at the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
105 Broadway, Room 7-128, MIT/CSAIL
Cambridge MA 02142 USA
www.w3.org/WAI/
Received on Friday, 20 November 2020 16:36:07 UTC