FW: conformance attached

Attached as a  Word Doc, and pasted below,  are some thoughts regarding an
enhance conformance scheme for us to discuss and possibly build on.

 

Gregg


 


 


Enhanced Conformance Scheme for WCAG 2.0


 

At the face to face in Venice, a point was made again that has been echoed a
number of times by consultants and company advocates here 

and that is:

*        If there is no recognition or "target" to work toward, people tend
to stop with regard to web access efforts.  

Currently, we have only defined one level of conformance for any checkpoint.
That is, doing all of the required.  Doing less than all of the required
items gets no credit.  Doing any more than just the minimum required also
gets no credit.  There is no way to acknowledge what has been done.

 

In reviewing the guidelines extensively, I've come to the following
conclusions.

 

1.      Much of what we had listed as priority 2 and 3 (and sometimes
priority 1) in the old guidelines now is listed under best practices.

2.      In fact, a tremendous amount of the meat (and vegetables), including
provisions that we would like to see implemented, are currently listed in
the best practice section.

3.      The best practice section in the guidelines is mixed.  Some of the
items are very testable while others are not testable.

4.      We have already clearly established that items that are not testable
cannot be success criteria and cannot be a part of conformance.

5.      Because CORE items are mandatory - and the "required" provisions
would be mandatory within CORE checkpoints, we moved many things we would
like to see done (but not absolutely required) out of required and into best
practice for core items.  These are provisions that are testable and highly
desirable.  If we leave them in best practice, they cannot be reported as
part of a conformance statement.   And they probably won't happen much.

6.      The idea of using metadata to identify those things that have been
done has been suggested.  However, if items are in the "best practices"
category and that category is viewed as being "untestable", then the use of
metadata to acknowledge conformance cannot be done.

7.      Both prior to and at the face to face, some concern was expressed
that having a simple CORE+1  or WCAG+3 etc. was not good enough. It did not
specify which items were conformed with.  Thus a +2 may be much more
accessible than a +3 for some group depending upon which extended items were
used.  It was stated that it would be preferable to have a situation where
the conformance clearly let the user know which extended points were
conformed with.

 

NOTE:  This proposal does not address the SCOPE issue.  (E.g., does the
conformance claim apply to just a page or the whole site.)  We still need to
address this one.

 

 

 

 




Proposal


In order to:

1.       Separate those items that are testable -- but not required  -- from
those items that are untestable.

2.       Provide a mechanism for individuals to be able to easily report
what they have done.

3.       Provide an incentive to organizations to move beyond the base
required items.

4.       Provide a mechanism for clearly acknowledging what has been done.

the following 3 part proposal is made.  It is presented in 3 parts so that
they can be commented on separately.  However, they really are intended to
be a single set of proposals that work together.

 


Part 1


That the current two categories (required success criteria and best practice
criteria) be changed to three categories.

*        Required success criteria

*        Level 2 success criteria

*        Best practice techniques

 

Those items that are both testable and felt to be a next reasonable step
beyond minimal  (that are currently in best practices) would be moved up to
the  Level 2 success criteria.

 

Individuals who conform to all of the core items could report Conformance to
WCAG 2.0.

 

Individuals conforming to all of the core items and all of the Level 2
conformance items for the core items could report conformance to WCAG 2.0
Core-Level2.

 

Conformance to each individual Extended Checkpoint would be reported
separately.  People could report conformance to the checkpoint or
conformance at Level 2.

 

Notes:

*        Only TESTABLE success criteria would be in either of the Required
or Conformance Level 2 categories. 



*        This mechanism would provide a very solid, meaningful and easy to
report mechanism for encouraging and acknowledging those who move beyond the
minimum level of conformance.



*        Since each of the extended checkpoints would be reported
separately.  Thus there would be no question of which items were conformed
with.  

*         (And a plus sign or an asterisk next to the conformance for any
item would indicate that the individual had gone beyond the minimum and to
level 2.)



*        This approach does have the limitation that it does not allow
individuals to claim every small step forward (e.g. every success criteria
separately).  They must complete all items for a level to claim it.   But
they can make claims, checkpoint by checkpoint.    

*         This limitation is probably good because it prevents the issue of
"which tiny steps forward within an individual checkpoint (beyond the
minimum)" are better than which others", etc.  If the individual meets all
of the Level 2 success criteria, they clearly have done a much better job of
conforming to that particular checkpoint.




Part 2


 

In order to make reporting easier, it is suggested that each of the extended
checkpoints be given a unique single digit number.  For now, I am suggesting
simply that after their ordered number (2.4 for example) it be given an E
number.  That is E-3.

 

In this fashion, you can report conformance as being core (or core Level 2)
and also E-1, 4, 5+, 6, 7+, 9.   Since there are only 9 Extended
Checkpoints, this makes for a rather easy way to specify the Extended
Checkpoints.

 

Other option 

We could also go back to the C1, C2, and E, But I believe that this is not
necessary.  The core guidelines do not need to be numbered separately since
one must conform with them all It is only the extended that need to be
easily and individually identified so that they can be easily and
individually reported without having to use the long three character
designators (e.g.  3.2).  

 

Note:  If we decided that one could report Level 2 conformance to individual
core guidelines, then they two would need to be numbered separately.
However, I think that we get into a problem if we start having the core
items be individually reported.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Part 3


 

This proposal was based on an analysis of the overall guidelines.  Below is
my first pass at what the "Level 2 conformance" items might look like.

 

In the following I have indicated what I thought might be moved into the new
"Level 2 conformance level" (after required and before the new best
practices section).  I will use

BP-1 as a shorthand to mean the current Best Practice criteria #1




1.1 (Core)   The LEVEL 2 CRITERIA would be:   BP-1.


1.2 [Core]


This one needs considerable work.   The Level 2 Criteria here would be those
items that we felt were important, but did not make it into the CORE
required.  

*        In particular, we may restrict the core required to a specific set
of content types or scope.  The rest could go into the Level 2 category.  

*        Also, the requirement for a full script (BP-1) and BP-3 could go in
this category.  

*        (This whole checkpoint is sticky and needs to be worked on, so what
goes into the extended here similarly needs to be thought out carefully).


1.3 [Core]   The LEVEL 2 CRITERIA: would be a new item which is:


"Any information presented using color is also available without color and
without needing to interpret markup.


1.4 [Core]      BP-1 (slightly reworded) and BP-2.


1.5 [Extended]   BP-1 and BP-2 (only).


1.6 [Extended]   BP-1, BP-2, and BP-4 (slightly reworded)


2.1 [Core]   BP-1


2.2 [Core]   BP-1.


2.3 [Core]   BP-1 and 2 only.


2.4 [Extended]  BP-1.


2.5 [Extended]   BP-1, 2, 3, and 4.


3.1 [Core]    BP-1.


3.2 [Extended]   BP-1 only.


3.3 [Extended]    (I'm not sure what would be the required or Level 2
conformance for this one yet.)


3.4 [Extended]   The LEVEL 2 CRITERIA: a new item.


"User can select a different location for navigation elements. (This may be
part of "optional layouts" feature.)"


4.1 [Core]    BP-1 as well as item D from the required success criteria.


4.2 [Extended]   BP-1 and 2 (3 is not clear).


4.3 [Extended]   This guideline needs reworking.


 


Conclusion


This approach would give a fairly concise, accurate, and meaningful
mechanism for reporting conformance.  It addresses the issues raised to date
including.

*          A mechanism for reporting meaningful incremental progress beyond
minimums.



*          A mechanism for reporting that does not represent progress beyond
minimum as a single number (e.g. +5) where it is not clear which items were
conformed with and where a +2 could be more accessible to a particular
individual than a +3, but they would have no way of knowing that. 



*        The conformance can be easily produced in either metadata or in a
very short and concise statement.  The conformance could even be displayed
in a logo only somewhat larger than our current logo.  

 

The following are examples of conformance statements.

o       WCAG 2.0

o       WCAG 2.0 Core-Level 2

o       WCAG 2.0, E-1,3

o       WCAG 2.0, E-1,2+,3,5,7+,9

And for the individual who did absolutely everything, it would look like 

o       WCAG 2.0 Core-Level 2, E-1+,2+,3+,4+,5+,6+,7+,8+,9+

OR we could make up a hypothetical one just for that special, unobtainable
case     

o       WCAG 2.0 All-Level 2

 

 

In fact, if we had people simply use the text string

          WCAG 2.0 Core-Level 2, E-1+, 2+, 3+, 4+, 5+, 6+, 7+, 8+, 9+

 and delete those numbers and plus signs (or the word Core-Level 2) as
appropriate, then the statement may even be automatically parse-able. 

 


Simple alternative


 

Alternatively we could just have four levels of conformance reporting.  One,
two, three and four stars.   

*	One star - is all WCAG Core
*	Two star - is all Extended or all Core Level 2
*	Three star - is all Extended and all Core Level 2
*	Four star - is all Core Level 2 and Extended Level 2

The only problem is that two star is ambiguous.

 


Other Alternatives


There are other things we might use as well for reporting conformance.  

 

 

Thoughts everyone?