- From: John M Slatin <john_slatin@austin.utexas.edu>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 08:55:06 -0500
- To: "Tim Boland" <frederick.boland@nist.gov>, <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <6EED8F7006A883459D4818686BCE3B3B7AE115@MAIL01.austin.utexas.edu>
Tim asked: <blockquote> Also, is there a commonly-agreed upon definition for "baseline </blockquote> Tim, see the proposal from Loretta Guarino, et al. re Guideline 4.2. That message includes a proposed definition of "baseline." The message is at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005AprJun/0015.html John "Good design is accessible design." 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 Tim Boland Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2005 8:33 am To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org Subject: Re: Issues and proposals: conformance claims Section 1.2 of QA SpecGL [1] discusses providing the wording for conformance claims as a good practice (1.2 Good Practice A). Techniques, as well, as several conformance claim templates (Forms 1 and 2) are given. It is also mentioned that conformance claims are closely related to issues of logos and branding (see QA Handbook [2]). 1.2 Good Practice B of QA SpecGL discusses providing an Implementation Conformance Statement proforma 1.2 Good Practice C of QA SpecGL discusses requiring an Implementation Conformance Statement as part of valid conformance claims. Would any of the previous be useful input into the current WCAG discussions? Also, is there a commonly-agreed upon definition for "baseline" (see reference following)? What about "profiles"? QA Framework [1] Glossary defines "profile" as "a subset of a technology that is tailored to meet specific functional requirements of a particular application community". Is that how WCAG defines "profile"? I couldn't find definition for "profile" (or "baseline") in WCAG2.0 Glossary Also, a Web resource may include multiple technologies, so would there be a different conformance claim for each technology included in a Web resource? Shouldn't a conformance claim be able to be made for a Web resource (even if the resource includes more than one technology)? ATAG2.0 WD [3] discusses "conformance profiles" - another possible input into discussion? [1]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-qaframe-spec-20041122/ [2]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/NOTE-qa-handbook-20041122/ [3]: http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ATAG20-20041122/#Conformance-Claim At 10:12 PM 4/5/2005 -0400, you wrote: At last week's telecon [1] there were several ideas that seemed to resonate with everyone. Ben and I took them as "requirements" for our work on conformance claims. A summary: 1. Conformance claims should be based on technology not user agent(s). 2. Technology name and version is required; user agent information is optional. 3. The claim should be simple to make. Providing a template or examples of common "profiles" would aid simplicity. Common "profiles" or "baselines" could be documented and referenced in claims. 4. Audience information could be included in a claim. 5. Include enough information in the conformance claim such that a 3rd party can verify the claim. [We conclude this means that some technique-related information must be provided, although we didn't sketch out how this would work. We hope to discuss this on Thursday.] 6. Conformance claims may include other optional assumptions. [1] <http://www.w3.org/2005/03/31-wai-wcag-minutes.html#item06> Here is a potential "template" based on the "Conformance profiles" in UAAG 1.0 <http://www.w3.org/TR/UAAG10/conformance.html#conformance-profiles> A conformance claim includes the following assertions: 1. Required: The date of the claim. 2. Required: The guidelines title/version: "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0" 3. Required: The URI of the guidelines:      http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/REC-WCAG20-YYYYMMDD/ 4. Required: The conformance level satisfied: "A", "AA", or "AAA" (or 1, 2, or 3??) 5. Required: A list of the specifications used to create the content for which the claim is being made. This includes markup languages, style sheet languages, scripting/programming languages, image formats, and multimedia formats. 6. Required: For each specification, indication if the technology is "used" or "relied upon" (i.e., if used - the content is usable if that technology is turned off or not supported. if relied upon - the content is not usable if that technology is turned off or not supported) 7. Required: Scope of the claim (a uri, list of uris or a regular expression) 8. Optional: A list of user agents that the content has been tested on. This should include assistive technologies. 9. Optional: Information about audience assumptions or target audience. This could include language, geographic information, interests or ??? Examples of conformance claims Example 1: On 13 March 2005, johnpointer.com conforms to W3C's WCAG 2.0. Conformance Level A. The specification that this content relies upon is: XHTML 1.0. The specifications that this content uses are: CSS2, Real Video, Real Audio, MP3, and gif.  This content was tested using the following user agents and assistive technologies: Firefox 1.01 (windows, linux), IE 3.0 and 6.0 (windows, mac), Jaws 3.7 and Jaws 6.0 (windows), Safari 1.2 (Mac), Opera 7.5 (OSX). Example 2: On 1 January 2005, "S5: An Introduction" <http://meyerweb.com/eric/tools/s5/s5-intro.html> conforms to W3C's WCAG 2.0. Conformance Level A. The specification that this content relies upon is: XHTML 1.0 (Strict). The specifications that this content uses are: JavaScript 1.2, CSS2, png, and jpg. Example 3: On 1 January 2005, "Photo gallery application" <http://foo.makeyourownslideshow.com <http://foo.makeyourownslideshow.com/> > conforms to W3C's WCAG 2.0. Conformance Level A. The specifications that this content relies upon are: XHTML 1.0 (Strict), CSS2, JavaScript 1.2, jpg. The specification that this content uses is: gif. The techniques profile that this site uses is, "HTML/ECMAScript for latest browsers." [Note: This techniques profile is not defined, but it was something that we had talked about. See "Questions and issues" that follow.] Questions and issues: During last week's discussion and per proposals on the mailing list there is a potential requirement that "technologies should meet minimum conditions" (ala Jason's proposal at [2]). However, as part of techniques we would need to clearly indicate "repair techniques" and perhaps build a mapping (or a list) of techniques that we recommend for a suggested baseline. For example: for a baseline aimed at a wide audience we recommend avoiding accesskey since it is not widely supported by browsers and assistive technologies. [2] <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2005JanMar/0679.html> Thoughts? Questions? Issues? Best, --wendy -- wendy a chisholm world wide web consortium web accessibility initiative http://www.w3.org/WAI/ /--
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 13:55:12 UTC