WCAG2.0 questions: the conformance model

Judy asks:

5. Does the conformance model appear to be:
- clearly defined and implementable?

As is relatively clear from the number of Editorial notes scattered through 
the conformance section, the WG is still struggling with the conformance 
issue.  I have not been following the technical discussion on conformance 
closely, but I do have an opinion. It seems there is a requirement/wish 
that conformance levels be machine codable in metadata.  One of the 
problems is how make such reporting simple when there may now be many 
possible levels of compliance: Core-required plus random combinations of 
Core-best practices, Extended-required, and Extended-best practices.  To 
me, this is not really much better than the P1, P2, P3 model.  It is 
possibly more complicated especially if the WG continues to try to give 
page authors the ability to specify Core+n conformance.  Some complicated 
metadata scheme might work if someone builds a tool that generates the 
required metadata from a checkpoint checklist.  But would enough people use 
such a tool to make it worthwhile?  I will continue to provide a text 
description of the accessibility features and conformance of a site, even 
if I also include a conformance claim in metadata.

- clearly explained with respect to questions people may have regarding the 
transition from WCAG 1.0 to 2.0?

I agree with Sailish... What I miss in this draft is any easy-to-understand 
definition of what conforming at any level means to the user.  Conformance 
here is defined only in relation to the checkpoints themselves: you conform 
at this level if you do this.  With WCAG 1.0 it was comforting to know, for 
instance, that if you take care of P1's you conform at Single A and if you 
DON'T then this is the outcome.  The up-front statement of outcomes is 
missing in WCAG 2.0.

Chuck Letourneau

Starling Access Services
"Access A World Of Possibility"