Re: WCAG Conformance Requirements

Kynn, nice start. By and large I have the same grab-bag, so I have just made
comments...

On Fri, 22 Dec 2000, Kynn Bartlett wrote:

  This is not an attempt to start a discussion about what a
  conformance scheme should look like.  :)
[...it's just a list cmn: and a good one]
KB
  * Conformance claims should be machine-readable; therefore,
     the conformance scheme should be compatible with RDF.
CMN I would say must
KB  * Conformance claims should be human-readable.
CMN I think I would say must here too
KB  * Icons or graphics must be provided which identify conformance
     claims.
CMN I think this follows as a consequence of the previous requirement
KB  * Conformance scheme should be complex enough to accurately
     represent the relative level of accessibility of a web site.
CMN I think it must allow for, and should require this
KB  * Conformance scheme should allow a user to identify specifically
     whether or not _her_ needs are met, based on her disability/
     ability type(s), rather than simply a generalized measure of
     "is this 'accessible'".  In other words, a blind user should be
     able to discern whether or not the site is claiming to be
     accessible to -her-, instead of simply measuring up to some
     general standard of accessibility.

  * Conformance should be compatible with WCAG 1.0 conformance
     scheme in some manner; there should be an established
     relationship between the two scales, if not an outright
     equivalency relationship.

  * Conformance claims must account for alternate presentations
     being generated by adaptive web sites.
CMN Just claims? Either WCAG should or shouldn't, as a whole I think.
KB  * Conformance claims should be reportable on a site-wide
     basis -- e.g., this claim refers to all of our content which
     we have made available.

  * Conformance claims should be reportable on a document
     level -- e.g., this claim refers to this document only.

KB  * Additionally, conformance claims should identify alternate
     interfaces or versions which are more or less conformant, if
     known.  So the document above which was not conformant could
     also refer to a more accessible version.
CMN Again I am not sure if this belongs in teh area of conformance claims, or
of WCAG requirements in teh "ordinary sense".
KB  * There should be a way to measure an aggregate conformance
     claim on a site which provides varying levels of conformance
     on different documents or interfaces.
CMN Hmmm. I am not sure I know what an aggregate conformance claim means,
beyond a set of claims that vary page by page. If they can do that, and are
machine readable, then it is a client-side issue whether to average them,
take the lowest common denominator, or provide more detailed information I
think.

Thanks again for doing this.

Charles

Received on Saturday, 23 December 2000 20:40:45 UTC