- From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 13:10:12 -0600
- To: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <gv@trace.wisc.edu>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <C46A1118E0262B47BD5C202DA2490D1A0183AD08@MAIL02.austin.utexas.edu>
Here's another attempt to define the three levels of success criteria, responding to Gregg's message (below). (Note: I did take the 11 March Working Draft as a starting point...) As I continued to think about the differences among the levels, it struck me that in the current scheme Level 1 criteria do not limit either content or presentation: they have to do with markup, scripting, and other things that interact with user agents, servers, etc. Level 2 criteria affect presentation. Level 3 criteria affect both content and presentation as well as markup, scripting, etc. I'm not sure this is correct, but I've incorporated that thinking into the proposal below. John == <begin proposed> Level 1 success criteria 1. Do not set limits on content or presentation; 2. achieve a minimum level of accessibility through markup, scripting, or other technologies that interact with user agents, including assistive technologies; 3. may reasonably be applied to all Web resources; 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. Build on Level 1; 2. enhance accessibility through presentation; 3. may reasonably be applied to all Web resources; 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 3 success criteria 1. May provide essential benefits for users with specific disabilities; 2. may enhance accessibility for a broad range of users with disabilities; 3. may affect content as well as presentation and markup; 4. may reasonably be applicable to selected resources; 5. 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. </end proposed> "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/> -----Original Message----- From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gregg Vanderheiden Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:46 pm To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: RE: Action item: proposed rewrite of conformance section Hi John What did you use as the source that you worked from. This list doesn't seem to be a simpler form of our current guidelines. For example at level 3 you mention cog and language and also 'hard to quantify" I would remove those - Level 3 must also be testable and cognitive and language are in all levels. This looks like level 3 is for those. Thanks for tackling this. Can you do a version that is based off of our current draft? Thanks. Gregg -- ------------------------------ Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr. Director - Trace R & D Center University of Wisconsin-Madison _____ From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John M Slatin Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 12:29 PM To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: 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/>
Received on Monday, 29 March 2004 14:10:51 UTC