Conformance claims - by success criteria?

In today's call we talked a lot about using metadata to make conformance 
claims.  Our assumption was that we would be expressing conformance to 
checkpoints.  What if instead conformance was to the success criteria?  We 
already have some criteria that are conditional.

This seems overwhelming, yet would be very exact and possible using 
EARL/metadata.

I still also wonder about what conformance will look like at the 
technology-specific level.  Do we have one priority scheme for 
guidelines/checkpoints and another for technology-specifics?  Cynthia drew 
3 axes that we must address when creating a priority scheme:
·       WCAG 1.0 - pure accessibility model
·       technical feasibility
·       reasonableness or mitigating factors or something

One possibility is that guidelines/checkpoints priorities are based on the 
pure accessibility model, while the priority scheme for 
technology-specifics takes into account technical feasibility and other 
mitigating factors.

But, how would these fit together into one coherent conformance claim?

Perhaps at the guideline/checkpoint level we have priorities, but at the 
technology-specific layer they are not priorities but 
"possibilities."  Clearly defining what is possible and most widely used 
today.  Keeping in mind Gregory's "opt-out" strategy to be included for 
each technology-specific "possibility."

Just some random thoughts...sorry no clear proposal.
--wendy
--
wendy a chisholm
world wide web consortium
web accessibility initiative
seattle, wa usa
/--

Received on Thursday, 11 October 2001 17:55:00 UTC