- From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 23:58:22 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
- Message-id: <001001c30ae7$510374d0$096fa8c0@TOSHIBATABLET>
INTRODUCTION Below is my attempt to capture the latest conversations on GROUPS and CONFORMANCE (dubbed 'take 5'). This is the next installment in our evolution of this thread of ideas - but it is not a final proposal, and not a consensus report at this time. It is just our working document listing our thoughts at this time. Instead of talking about levels we decided to change the name to something like GROUPs or SETs. We decided to ask the EO group for their thoughts on word choice. In the meantime I've used GROUP below since I listened and the word GROUP was used more than SET in the comments near the end of the call. Also, in the narrative below it talks about other groups, governments or organizations creating their own SETS of items. THE GROUPS GROUP A - 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. * These measures would constitute the core required set of checkpoints * GROUP B. - Those measures that allow access beyond Group A 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. GROUP C. - Those measures that improve access, either directly or via assistive technology, beyond Group A 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 limitations. * Some would be an unreasonable amount of work to expect of all web content or sites. CONFORMANCE Group A - would be required for any conformance. People, companies, or governments could then select any items from Groups B or C to create "Priority" or "Conformance" beyond Group 1 for their purposes. (or they could include items from GROUP 2 in THEIR minimum. ) However the intent would be that Agencies or Governments would NOT CHANGE the wording of any checkpoints or success criteria 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 Group A guidelines of the WCAG 2.0.). CONFORMANCE REPORTING AND NAMES - All Group A items would need to be met in order to make any claim of conformance. - After Group A was met, a claim of conformance could include any mix of items in GROUPS B and/or C. - If ALL of GROUP B were met it might be nice to have a mark for it. - If ALL of GROUP B AND C (and of course A) were met we should definitely have a mark. - (Is it likely that anyone would ever or could ever meet all of Group C without meeting Group B?) NAMES We also talked about names for the different levels of conformance. One approach is to refer to GROUP A as the CORE requirements. Conformance at this level would be referred to as CORE compliance or conformance. For any checkpoints beyond core you would use a plus and the number. For example: CORE +6 conformance. One could argue that not all the checkpoints should be considered equal. But that may be a fine point - and subjective. So just using the numbering may be as good as anything. For those that get all of GROUP B we might use 'ADVANCED" or 'EXTENDED" conformance. EXTENDED may be the better word. It is a common word in W3C for the next level of conformance. And we are "extending" the accessibility to more users. Other words tossed out CORE, STRICT, MINIMUM, BASIC, ESSENTIAL FAQs What Groups do the cognitive items fall into in Take 5? They fall into all three groups. In Group A - people with cognitive disabilities 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. Group A will be much like WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 1.0 compliant sites should have little difficulty meeting most or all of the Group A criteria. Some things required in 1.0 may not be required in GROUP A. More detail will need to wait til we are further along. Groups B and C 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. Comments? Gregg ------------------------ 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/> http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/
Received on Friday, 25 April 2003 00:58:34 UTC