RE: Brainstorming ideas for Full-Partial ATAG2 Conformance Types

What about tools (or collections of tools) that do some SCs of Level A, and some SCs of AA, as well as some SCs of AAA (they may "overengineer"), but don't do all SCs at a particular level?.. 
(SIDE NOTE: Should credit be given for "overengineering" above a certain level?)
We may be implicitly assuming that in seeking conformance
that first tools (or collections of tools) may strive to meet all of A, then all of AA, and then finally all of AAA, but that may not be the case, tools may be "all over the place" when it comes to meeting SCs at different levels.  Have we adequately taken this into account if it is so (and should we)?

Also, for "partial conformance", should we distinguish between (for example, only meeting one SC at level A, and meeting all but one SC at level A) - is the latter somehow better than the former (if not, should it be)?

Just some thoughts after the call..

Take care
Tim Boland NIST    

-----Original Message-----
From: Richards, Jan [mailto:jrichards@ocad.ca] 
Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 4:28 PM
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Subject: Brainstorming ideas for Full-Partial ATAG2 Conformance Types

Previous...

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0069.html
Authoring System Conformance (A, AA, AAA)
"Partial" Component-Only Conformance (A, AA, AAA)

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0071.html 
"Full" ATAG 2.0 Conformance (No-Level, A, AA, AAA)
"Partial" Component-Only Conformance (No-Level, A, AA, AAA)

On the Call...

Authoring System Conformance
Authoring Tool Conformance

Full System Conformance
Sub-System Conformance

Unassisted Conformance
Assisted Conformance


After the Call....
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0082.html
1. "Full" ATAG 2.0 Conformance (A, AA, or AAA)
2. "Partial" Conformance (No-Level, A, AA, AAA)



Other ideas welcome!

Cheers,
Jan







> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richards, Jan [mailto:jrichards@ocad.ca]
> Sent: November 14, 2011 4:04 PM
> To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> Subject: Minutes from AUWG Teleconference on 14 Nov 2011 3:00pm-4:00pm
> ET (TODAY)
> 
> Minutes:
> http://www.w3.org/2011/11/14-au-minutes.html
> 
> Full text:
> WAI AU
> 14 Nov 2011
> 
> Agenda
> 
> See also: IRC log
> Attendees
> 
> Present
>     Jeanne, +1.571.765.aaaa, Greg, Jan, Jutta, Alex, AlastairC, Cherie,
> Tim_Boland, +1.561.582.aabb, Sueann
> Regrets
> Chair
>     Jutta Treviranus
> Scribe
>     AlastairC
> 
> Contents
> 
>     Topics
>         1. Proposed conformance types:
>     Summary of Action Items
> 
> 1. Proposed conformance types:
> 
> <Jan> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-
> au/2011OctDec/0071.html
> 
> <Jan> JT: Note that not just full disclosure...also progress towards
> confromance
> 
> Jan: Agree that 'authoring tool' is problematic, but that is the name
> of the guidelines! We've defined it to be the whole thing.
> ... To change, we'd have to rename it to something bigger than the
> whole document.
> 
> AL: Perhaps need a term like authoring environent? Something along
> those lines.
> 
> <Jan> ATAG 2.0 System Conformance or
> 
> <jeanne> +1 to the name change
> 
> AL: 2 types: envinroment type, other is tool type.
> 
> <Jan> ATAG 2.0 Environmet Conformance
> 
> Jutta: other perspectives. Could have tool that only authors certain
> type of content. That tool could be seen as full conformance.
> 
> AL: Might need a matrix to define full conformance from a whole bunch
> of things.
> ... one axis: criteria, second axis: technologies.
> 
> Jan: Easier to explain that a simple tool can be a system?
> ... Note the astriks, noting the claim caveat.
> 
> Jutta, at the moment, we have full and partial, but the distinction is
> based on the accessible authoring features, but that isn't the wording
> the first one.
> 
> Jan: 1st one is end-to-end performance
> ... I see, it is 'accessible content' rather than 'web content'.
> 
> <Jan> - this conformance option *can* be chosen for authoring tools*
> that require no additional components to meet ATAG 2.0.
> 
> <Jan> - this conformance option *can* be chosen for authoring tools*
> that require no additional tools to meet ATAG 2.0.
> 
> Jeanne: Concerned with tools that only aspire to be focused. Having
> some 'full' some 'partial', doesn't sound great, sets up a heirarchy.
> 
> Jan: Partial in WCAG?
> 
> AL: Best idea we could come up with at the time, it was created mostly
> because system aggregators and user-gen content causes problems.
> 
> Jan: So someone could make a really great checker tool, but a problem
> elsewhere could mess it up.
> ... Full level, just failed a couple of criteria,
> 
> AC: How can you make a 'full' claim but not meet certain criteria,
> wouldn't that be a partial claim.
> 
> Jan: Sueann's example from VPAT: Say a tool is v accessible, but can't
> be installed accessibly.
> ... This text is going into the conformance levels area of the doc.
> 
> AL: Another site meets WCAG 2.0 A, plus a few AA but not enough to
> claim double A. They should be able to mark that down.
> ... Never really A/AA/AAA, there are in-betweens.
> 
> AC: Then why have partial?
> 
> Jan: Partial - the "no"s are ignored in terms of conformance.
> 
> Greg: Starting to segment tools by categories?
> ... Two tier conformance, you've got tool makers who can, but then
> you've got authors who can glue together different tools.
> ... Create conformance claim as an author.
> 
> AL: Authors don't have to make conformance claims.
> 
> J: Wordpress is an example, will want to claim, but don't include a
> checking and repair tool.
> 
> AL: That's why we get rid of "partial" and use component.
> 
> Jutta: Notion of ingrator/aggregator could pull tools together, how
> would they construct such a claim?
> 
> Jan: VPATs work by flowing through, they get it from developer, same
> thing here.
> 
> AC: Having no-level for Full conformance is ok if you have "component"
> rather than "partial" conformance as the other level.
> 
> <Jan> WHat about Full System Conformance vs. Sub-System Conformance?
> 
> Jeanne: Need to be sensitive to people with tools that are missing
> small parts of ATAG.
> 
> AL: We wouldn't claim for a system, we'd claim for specific tools.
> ... Why system vs sub? Why not system vs tools.
> 
> Jan: Tools can be whole or a small part.
> 
> J: 1 could be claimed by a very small tool, but because it meets all
> the requirements it can claim full conformance.
> ... 2 could be claimed by a large tool that covers every type of
> content, but doesn't try to have checking and repair.
> ... Pointing to size/complexity, rather than what accessible
> conformance it makes.
> 
> AL: Big systems wouldn't try for 1, just 2.
> 
> J: Worried that size of the tool / system as opposed to the degree to
> which it takes responsibility for accessible authoring practices.
> 
> AL: Most tools out there don't intend to do everything.
> 
> J: The largest thing is not always the thing that chooses to do all the
> accessibility features.
> ... 1. do it all yourself, where 'all' is differently defined. All may
> not be a lot.
> ... Suggesting 1 is 'system' and 2 'tool' conformance. But that implies
> it isn't how much of the accessible authoring practices it involves.
> ... What is really the distinction between 1 & 2, because it isn't
> whether it's a system or a tool.
> 
> AC: What about a workflow based differentiation?
> 
> Jutta: accessible workflow.
> 
> Jan: Let's hash out on the list.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> Jan
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richards, Jan
> > Sent: November 14, 2011 11:21 AM
> > To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
> > Subject: AUWG Teleconference on 14 Nov 2011 3:00pm-4:00pm ET (TODAY)
> >
> > here will be an AUWG teleconference on Monday 14 November 2011 at
> 3:00
> > pm - 4:00 pm ET:
> >
> > Call: (617) 761-6200 ext. 2894#
> > IRC: server: irc.w3.org, port: 6665, channel: #au
> >
> > If people think they will arrive more than 15 minutes late, please
> send
> > me an email beforehand.
> >
> > The dial-in numbers for Zakim are now ONLY:
> > ===========================================
> > +1.617.761.6200       (Boston)
> >
> >
> > Editor Drafts:
> > ==============
> > ATAG:
> > http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/ED-ATAG20-20111028/
> > Implementing ATAG:
> > http://www.w3.org/WAI/AU/2011/ED-IMPLEMENTING-ATAG20-20111028/
> > Last Call comment responses:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0054.html
> >
> >
> > Agenda:
> > ========
> >
> > 1. Proposed conformance types:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/2011OctDec/0071.html
> >
> > NOTE: If you feel that substantive changes are required, it would be
> > very helpful to send those  to the list ahead of the meeting.
> >
> >
> > Future meetings:
> > ================
> > Nov 21:
> > Nov 28:
> > Nov 2011: Last Call WD
> > Feb 2012: Candidate Recommendation
> > - this is more speculative, since we are guessing how long we will be
> > in CR
> > June 2012: Proposed Recommendation
> > August 2013: Recommendation
> >
> >
> > (MR) JAN RICHARDS
> > PROJECT MANAGER
> > INCLUSIVE DESIGN RESEARCH CENTRE (IDRC)
> >
> > T 416 977 6000 x3957
> > F 416 977 9844
> > E jrichards@ocad.ca
> >
> > Twitter @OCAD
> > Facebook www.facebook.com/OCADUniversity
> >
> > OCAD UNIVERSITY
> > 100 McCaul Street, Toronto, Canada  M5T 1W1
> > www.ocadu.ca
> >
>

Received on Monday, 14 November 2011 21:45:14 UTC