W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 2003

Conformance Claims and Logo

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2003 09:28:43 -0600
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <001e01c2c874$45e803f0$ac17a8c0@TOSHIBATABLET>

Hi all,


I took an action item to redo the conformance section and incorporate recent
discussions as well as propose a way out of some issues that were


Below is my attempt to do so.   (One week EARLY!) 


   I tried to make the Level descriptions accurate, rather than sounding
nice.  It is tricky.


(thanks Ben and Jason for input on this)


Comments please.







WCAG 2.0 provides three levels of conformance for each of its 21


MINIMUM LEVEL. - includes success criteria for the checkpoint that address
key problems and are applicable across the broad range of Web content and
sites.  Conformance at this level will substantially overcome the barriers
for many people with disabilities, but there will be people with
disabilities who will still not be able to access the content.  No claim of
conformance can be made unless the minimum level of conformance is achieved
for all checkpoints.


LEVEL 2 - includes additional success criteria that increase the
accessibility of Web content, but that are more difficult to implement on
Web content in general or on specific types of content.


LEVEL 3 - represents the highest level of conformance in WCAG 2.0.   It
includes success criteria that may be very difficult as well as criteria
that may not be possible at all for some types of content or some Web


Conformance Claims  


The rules regarding conformance claims are as follows:

1.	No conformance claim of any type may be made unless all MINIMUM
Level success criteria have been met for all checkpoints in WCAG 2.0.
2.	If all of the checkpoints have been met hat the MINIMUM success
criteria Level, but only some of the criteria for Level 2 have been met,
then a conformance claim at "LEVEL 1+" can be made.
3.	If all success criteria (for all checkpoints) are met at the MINIMUM
Level and Level 2, then a claim conformance at "Level 2" can be made.
4.	If all of the success criteria for (for all checkpoints) are met at
the MINIMUM and Level 2, as well as some, but not all of the criteria for
Level 3, then a conformance claim can be made at "Level 2+".
5.	If all success criteria for all Levels have been met, then a
conformance claim at "Level 3" can be made.



All conformance claims must include (at minimum):

1.	The version of the guidelines to which a conformance claim is made
and the URI of the guidelines document.
2.	The scope of the conformance claim (pages, portions of the site,
types of content etc.  addressed by the claim)
3.	The level at which conformance is claimed.
4.	The date the conformance claim was made.


For conformance claims of Level 1+ and Level 2+, it is helpful and
recommended (but not required) that sites report specifically which criteria
they have met within each of the guidelines and checkpoints.  Techniques for
specifying which success criteria beyond Minimal have been met can be found
in the WCAG 2.0 Techniques document for the specific technology(s) you are



[REVIEWER'S NOTE: there is ongoing discussion regarding whether claims of 1+
and 2+ must have details about what beyond  Level1 has been done --  and for
what parts of the content it is true (if a general claim is made).]


WCAG 1.0 Compliant Sites

Sites which are WCAG 1.0 compliant may want to use qualified conformance
statement as they begin to adopt 2.0.  A statement that materials that are
created or updated before a certain date are 1.0 compliant and materials
after that date are 2.0 compliant, for example, could be used to capitalize
on past accessibility efforts while shifting toward the newer more
technology independent WCAG 2.0 guidelines.


Use of the WCAG 2.0 Logo

Whole sites which meet the WCAG 2.0 at the Minimum, level 2 or level 3 can
use the WCAG 2.0 logo-icon with the appropriate level.


Sites that have a mixed level of conformance can use the WCAG 2.0 "mixed"
logo on their home page as long as all sections meet the Minimum level or
WCAG 1.0- Level A.  In the latter case, both WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0 logos
should be used along with a listing of those sections which do not meet the
WCAG 2.0 Minimal but do meet WCAG 1.- Level A.  These sections should not
provide core functionality for the site. 


Information about proper use of the logo is located at



[REVIEWER'S NOTE: that it is not required that they use the logo, so the
methods for using the logo would not appear in the checklist, except if
there was statement that went, "If the logo is used, the following have been
complied with."]

Historical and Third Party Copyrighted Materials

Materials which were not developed by or for the entity sponsoring the site
and whose development was not under the control of the entity sponsoring the
site are not required to meet these guidelines in order for a site to meet
the guidelines.  These items would be considered commodities or products
delivered by the site rather than being part of the site. 













[Gregg Note: I was thinking that  we couldn't /shouldn't  require that they
profile which checkpoints they follow beyond a level when claiming a "+"
conformance because we decided not to REQUIRE metadata, and if it isn't,
presented  in metadata I'm not sure how it really helps to know exactly what
is or isn't complied with - and it would vary from page to page.


[Ben Note:  ] Hopefully, if you're an author who's claiming a "+"
conformance, you have written the success criteria that have been met down
somewhere. Whether an author wants to transfer that information to a
publicly available claim would be up to them. You're right about not wanting
to require meta information on this, so I think we should say that
conformance profiles are recommended but not required (and provide alternate
techniques for generating conformance profiles in the TS Techniques docs. ).


I see that you took my recommendation and removed "A conformance profile
that specifies" from item #3 above.   That way, we only require the authors
to specify the level they're claiming.  It could be done in either text on
an accessibility page on the site or in EARL and could left somewhat
ambiguous by the author if they didn't want to take the trouble to advertise
what they've met beyond Minimum. For example, you could say something like
"All content on this site meets WCAG 2.0 at the Minimum Level." And use the
Minimum conformance icon. You could then say something more ambiguous like,
"Where possible, the contents of this site meet level 2 and 3."


Maybe the rule is that unless you provide details about + levels, you can't
use any conformance logo beyond minimum except on the pages where it is
true.   And that use of the logo on the HOME page has special meaning and
restrictions so that you can't put it on the home page if that is the only
accessible page.  Even if in fine print you say that it is only the home


[GREGG NOTES RE - SCOPE:  If we allow them to specify scope, we need to set
some rules.  What if they claim  WCAG 2.0  2+ but then just specify that the
scope statement applies only to the home and product description pages but
not any of the order form pages.]  



[Ben NOTE] Then they could only use the WCAG 2.0 2+ logo on those pages that
meet it. The current logo use page says, "By default, a conformance icon
refers to a single page. If the claim is meant to apply to include more than
one page, the conformance icon must be accompanied by explicit scope
information explaining which pages are covered by the claim." Does that
cover it?




[BEN -]   Now that we have scope as a minimum requirement for a claim, these
types of materials could  already be excluded by definition. Can we deal
with these in techniques? This will need to be addressed in techniques for
4.1 at some level as well.


 GREGG NOTE: if we just leave it to the scope statement  --- and allow any
exclusions in scope (and don't limit them like the above text does) then
people can just exclude sections of their sites and claim conformance
couldn't they?.




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 send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu <
<mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu> mailto:listproc@trace.wisc.edu> 

Received on Thursday, 30 January 2003 10:28:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:07:29 UTC