Action item: proposed rewrite of conformance section

At the F2F in Los Angeles, I took an action item to revise the
Conformance section for clarity.  Here's my first attempt, based on the
11 March 2004 Working Draft [1].
 
<begin proposed>

Conformance


Editorial Note: There are several open issues with the proposed
conformance scheme. This section outlines the conformance scheme used
throughout this document. Feedback, comments, and proposals are
encouraged.

WCAG 2.0 establishes four principles of accessibility and defines 14
guidelines for applying those principles. Under each guideline are one
or more success criteria that must be satisfied in order to claim
conformance to WCAG 2.0. 

There are three levels of success criteria. The levels are defined as
follows: 

*         Level 1 success criteria: 

1.      do not set limits on the default presentation of content;

2.      rely on the functionality of user agents, including some
assistive technologies;

3.      May reasonably be applied to all Web sites

4.      Are testable. some success criteria are machine-testable. Others
require human judgment. Success criteria that require human testing are
capable of yielding consistent results among multiple testers.

*         Level 2 success criteria: 

1.      may require an author to present content in particular ways

2.      May reasonably be applied to all Web sites

3.      Are testable. some success criteria are machine-testable. Others
require human judgment. Success criteria that require human testing are
capable of yielding consistent results among multiple testers.

*         Level 3 success criteria: 

1.      May provide essential benefits for users with specific
disabilities such as cognitive impairments and learning disabilities;

2.      Make Web resources more accessible to a broad range of users
with disabilities;

3.      May require additional content or impose limits on the way
content is presented.

4.      May yield evaluation results that are difficult to quantify

Editorial Note: To facilitate discussion related to the levels assigned
to each criterion, a square bracket notation is included at the end of
each criterion. "[V]" (visible) indicates that the criterion does not
limit the default presentation of content. A notation of "[I]"
(invisible) indicates that addressing the criterion may require an
author to present content in particular ways. [js note: This use of "v"
and "I" seems counterintuitive to me. I keep wanting "visible" to mean
that the criterion results in something that's visible in the default
presentation, while "invisible" means something that's invisible to the
"naked eye."]

Note: 

Some guidelines do not contain level 1 success criteria.


Conformance Claims


1.      In order to make a valid conformance claim for a Web resource,
the resource must satisfy all level 1 success criteria for all
guidelines.

2.      A conformance claim of "WCAG 2.0 Level A" can be made if all
level 1 success criteria for all guidelines have been met.

3.      A conformance claim of "WCAG 2.0 A+" can be made if all level 1
success criteria for all guidelines and some level 2 success criteria
have been met. 

4.      A conformance claim of "WCAG 2.0 AA" can be made if all level 1
success criteria and all level 2 success criteria for all guidelines
have been met.

5.      A conformance claim of "WCAG 2.0 AAA" can be made if all level
1, level 2, and all level 3 success criteria for all guidelines have
been met.

Editorial Note: Feedback from WCAG 1.0 indicates that developers often
do not attempt to meet any Priority 2 Checkpoints because there is no
way to indicate in the conformance claim that they have "done more than
Level A but not enough to claim Level AA." "A+" is a proposal that
allows developers to say, "I do more than A but not all of AA." However,
some members of the WCAG WG have issues with the idea of having any "+"
conformance claims such as A+ or AA+.

*	How should conformance claims state which guidelines are met? in
metadata? in a site accessibility statement? some other method?
*	How should conformance claims state how many Level 2 criteria
are met? In metadata? With A+n (n=number of AA criteria met)? In a site
accessibility statement? Some other method?
*	If A+ is claimed, should we require a statement about which
criteria are met?
*	Is there a separate logo for each level: A, A+, and AA? If
so,what does the logo point to?
*	Comparisons of A+ conformance claims can not be made unless
detailed information is provided about the criteria that are met.
*	Should detailed conformance information be provided in metadata?
There is doubt that it will be kept up to date, especially if the site
becomes less accessible over time. Also, we may be unable to require
metadata since some companies have indicated that the legal and ISO 9000
ramifications would prevent them from posting metadata describing the
exact conformance.
*	If it were possible to claim "A+n" where "n" denotes the number
of criteria that are met, some developers report that they would be
encouraged to meet more criteria and increase the number they can
report. However, people are likely to compare the number and these
comparisons could be misleading. For example, a site that claims "A+2"
could be more accessible than a site that claims "A+3" depending on
which criteria are met.
*	There is a proposal that to meet AAA only a percentage of Level
3 success criteria must be met. 


What a conformance claim must include


All conformance claims must include at least the following items: 

1.      The title and version of the guidelines document to which
conformance is claimed 

2.      the URI of the guidelines document.

3.      the publication date of the guidelines document

4.      The scope of the conformance claim. The scope describes which
parts of a site or application are included in the claim. 

Editorial Note: Should exclusions be allowed for certain types of
content, such as third-party or copyrighted material that is being
reprinted? How does one define scope? Is it an end-to-end process that
the user should be able to complete? Is it a path through accessible
content?

5.      The level of conformance and any additional set of criteria for
which conformance is claimed.

6.      The date the conformance claim was made.


Conformance claims and the transition from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0


Sites that currently conform to WCAG 1.0 may make a qualified Qualified
conformance claim. For example, a Qualified Conformance claim Statement
might include the following statement : "Materials created or modified
before [publication date of WCAG 2.0 Recommendation]conform to WCAG 1.0.
Materials created or modified on or after [publication date of WCAG 2.0
Recommendation] conform to WCAG 2.0 at Level [x]."

Editorial Note: In some instances, the WCAG 2.0 Working Draft may be
easier to conform to than the WCAG 1.0 Recommendation while other
criteria might be harder to meet in WCAG 2.0 than in WCAG 1.0. The WCAG
WG will consider the differences between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG 2.0
conformance and offer advice to developers who currently conform to WCAG
1.0. This advice might take the form of a WCAG 1.0 conformance profile
to WCAG 2.0 and information about migrating from WCAG 1.0 to WCAG 2.0.
This advice is not yet available.

</end proposed>

 

[1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-20040311/

 


"Good design is accessible design." 
Please note our new name and URL!
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/
<http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/>