- From: Jason White <jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Wed, 21 Jul 1999 14:11:11 +1000 (AEST)
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-hwg@idyllmtn.com>
- cc: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I am here responding to a suggestion by Kynn Bartlett that the current definition of conformance is inadequate in that it does not allow claims of partial compliance, in cases where developers have not had time to redesign their content so as to conform completely at a particular level of priority. Kynn argues, as I understand his position, that the broad granularity of the conformance requirement may operate as a disinsentive that militates against application of checkpoints at a higher level of priority than that to which full compliance is asserted. At the risk of complicating the conformace section of the guidelines, and assuming, without presently expressing an opinion on the point, that this drawback is outwayed by the persuasiveness of Kynn's argument, I would suggest that in a future revision of the document, a qualification could be added to the "conformance" section along the following lines: If a conformance statement asserts compliance with level A or level double-A of these guidelines, then it may be supplemented by a list of checkpoints, drawn, in the case of level A conformance, from the set of all priority 2 and 3 checkpoints, and in the case of double-A conformance, from the set of priority 3 checkpoints, to which compliance is also claimed. Any such supplemental list must specify the reference number of each checkpoint, as provided in the guidelines document, and must either appear on the same page as the conformance statement or be prominently and unambiguously linked thereto. Note that in this proposal, I have specifically excluded the possibility of claiming partial conformance below level A, on the footing that Level A requirements are absolutely fundamental in providing a basic level of accessibility.
Received on Wednesday, 21 July 1999 00:11:53 UTC