Conformance in WCAG 2.0

At 3:57 PM -0500 12/14/00, Leonard R. Kasday wrote:
>Now what about compliance?  Have we figured out
>- if there would still be A , double A, or triple AAA, or some other 
>compliance?
>- if so how they would be determined?
>
>Or is this still an issue that we'll be getting to later?

I continue to have very strong objections to the current Single-A,
Double-A, Triple-A conformance scheme/de facto implementation
plans, as defined in WCAG 1.0.  (I've had these objections since
before WCAG 1.0 was released.)

I would like to see this issue addressed again, with a goal towards
first identifying the -needs- of a compliance scheme, in the form
of a requirements document.  I believe that there are a number of
requirements that should be placed on a conformance scheme and I
feel it is important to document those and get them out in the open
for discussion before proceeding.

I also feel that it is a very poor idea to automatically -assume-
the WCAG 1.0 compliance scheme should continue, as such an assumption
will, by nature of the implicit choice, lead us to cast the questions
in terms of "how can we get what we want from the current scheme"
instead of "what is the best compliance scheme we can create?"

I don't believe we have gotten to this issue at all yet -- if I
missed it, I apologize, it has been a very hectic few months -- but
I think I have a lot to contribute to a discussion of WCAG 2.0
compliance scheme _requirements_.  When would we like to start such
a requirements discussion?

--Kynn
-- 
Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
http://www.kynn.com/

Received on Thursday, 14 December 2000 21:34:05 UTC