Take 4 - Proposal for Definitions and coformance (with just 2 Levels)



Below is a new proposal for LEVELS and CONFORMANCE  (dubbed 'take 4').  This
proposal is based on recent discussion and ideas from the working group's
Face to Face and telecoms.  This proposal is a proposal though, and NOT a
consensus report at this time.    


The Levels are similar to priorities.  There are however just two (with two
types of level 2) and they have important differences.


They are designed to be as useful as possible to people trying to set
priorities and to companies or countries trying to establish Web
accessibility policy.


Level 1 would be required for any conformance.   People, companies, or
governments could then select any items from level 2 (a or b) to create
Priority or Conformance levels beyond 1 for their purposes. (or they could
include items from level 2 in THEIR minimum. )


However the intent would be that they would NOT CHANGE any items themselves.
Thus different entities might have different sets of requirements (and thus
different emphases), but all would be compatible with each other.  If you
did the union of all the different guidelines and complied with that union
set, you would meet all of the guidelines for the different countries and
you would have a proper subset of the WCAG 2.0 guidelines (and it would
include all of the minimum or level 1 guidelines of the WCAG 2.0.). 







Level 1 - Those measures that can provide access without changing or
constraining the presentation of the page - and that it was felt could be
reasonably applied to all web content or sites.  

*        These items address compatibility of the Web content with assistive
technologies for all disabilities.  

*        They also include accessibility that can be achieved using mass
market web browsing technologies but that do not affect the default view of
the content by all users.  

*        Many people would be able to 


Level 2a. - Those measures that allow access beyond level 1 but can be
reasonably applied to all types of web content or sites.  

*        These measures affect the presentation of the pages somewhat in
order to make them more accessible.   

*        They often allow access to some individuals without requiring any
assistive technology. 

*        These do not address all disabilities but allow many to access web
content using mass market web browsing technologies alone. 


Level 2b. - Those measures that improve access, either directly or via
assistive technology, beyond Level 1 but that cannot be applied reasonably
to all web sites or content.  

*        Some would require multiple presentations of the information or
targeting of the web site to individuals with particular functional

*        Some would be an unreasonable amount of work to expect of all web
content or sites. 






-          All level 1 items would need to be met in order to make any claim
of conformance.


-          After level 1 was met, a claim of conformance could include any
mix of items in level 2.    

o       It is not clear how to name conformance levels after 1.    If you
just let them say +6 if they did 6, then people could choose the simplest 6
and compare it to someone with a much harder 6.  Or claim +9 because there
were 9 that did no apply to them.     Partly we shouldn't get to up tight
about this.  If it just shows that people are looking and trying getting
larger numbers - then we are succeeding. 


-          If ALL of level 2a were met it might be nice to have a mark for
it.       AA?

-          If ALL of level 2b and 2a were met we should definitely have a
mark.    AAA?

-          (Is it likely that anyone would ever or could ever meet all of
level 2b without meeting 2a?)







What level do the cognitive items fall into in Take 4?

They fall into both levels and all three categories.  In level 1 - they are
able to benefit from current and future AT browsing technologies as well
from web content that is routed through transcoding servers and changed into
forms that are directly accessible via mass market browsing products. 


How does this change the organization of the guidelines?  Would these go
under our current checkpoints?

That remains to be seen.  These might go right under the guidelines - with
the checkpoints falling under them.   This would both break up some and
recombine other current checkpoints.  There is a subgroup of the working
group that is exploring different alternatives and reworkings right now.  



How do these groups relate to WCAG 1.0?

Details remain to be sorted out.    Level 1 will be much like WCAG 1.0 and
WCAG 1.0 compliant sites should have little difficulty meeting most or all
of the Level 1 criteria.   Some things required in 1.0 may not be required
in Level 1.    More detail will need to wait til we are further along.


Level 2a and b will be like  AA and AAA levels but there is not a direct
correspondence.  The new approach provides much more flexibility in
reporting or claiming conformance, and allows reporting of incremental
progress beyond the minimum with much greater detail and flexibility than
1.0.   Again, sites compliant with 1.0 should do well with 2.0.     









Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Human Factors 
Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
Gv@trace.wisc.edu < <mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu> mailto:Gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <
<http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> 
FAX 608/262-8848  
For a list of our listserves  <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>


Received on Friday, 11 April 2003 01:17:05 UTC