Re: Granularity of conformance claims

It seems to me that there is nothing to stop developers claiming partial
conformance in ny way they want, but the actual conformance section of the
document says effectively that the group thinks there are three different
types of conformance, which signal three different levels of accessibility,
and do not offer any official recognition for any other type of claim.

Effectively this allows the developers of web content to say all manner of
things about what they have done to improve the accessibility of their web
content, and to say that they claim to have attained (or exceeded) a
particular level of accessibility according to the WCAG 1.0 out of a small
number of possible levels. Having a very small number of possible levels,
with simple natural descriptions of what they mean, allows for a much easier
comparison and requirement setting than having to wiegh the relative value of
each checkpoint against each other.

Which seems to me a good argument for leaving the status quo alone.

charles McCN


On Wed, 21 Jul 1999, Jason White wrote:

  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 21:37:09 UTC