RE: Re: Conformance use-cases

Do we have a definition of "responsible entity"?
Thanks and best wishes
Tim Boland NIST 

________________________________________
From: Richards, Jan [jrichards@ocad.ca]
Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2011 10:58 PM
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Subject: Re: Conformance use-cases

Hi all,

Sueann and I had a chat about conformance today, which prompts me to tweak the previous proposal (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0070.html) a bit:

Proposed Conformance Types:
---------------------------
1. "Full" ATAG 2.0 Conformance (No-Level, A, AA, or AAA)
- this conformance option *can* be chosen for authoring tools* that require no other components to produce web content.
- higher bar to claim a level (e.g. for Level A, all Level A SCs must be either met or be judged "not applicable")
- level "No-Level" is added to allow for full disclosure, as with a VPAT

2. "Partial" Component-Only Conformance (No-Level, A, AA, AAA)
- this conformance option *can* be chosen for authoring tools* that would require other components to conform as a complete authoring system (e.g., because they do most things but lack a small part: checking, repair, the ability to save alternatives for reuse, accessible transformation, etc. or because they do just a small part: e.g. checking and repair)
- lower bar to claim a level: "No" answers are recorded, but ignored when determining the level ON THE CONDITION that for any "No" answers, the tool must not prevent the SC from being met, in theory, by another authoring component as part of a larger authoring process. For example, if a tool locks down the production of content so that checking and repair by an external tool is not possible, it could not use this conformance type.

*As with any software, authoring tools can be an amalgmation of components. As with a legal claim, a conformance claim can only be made by a responsible entity. Any other attempted "claims" are, in fact, reviews.

Cheers,
Jan

Received on Friday, 11 November 2011 12:13:35 UTC