- From: Matt May <mcmay@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 17:25:52 -0700
- To: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
- Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: >The topic of levels of conformance was discussed in the Face to Face. In >the process a number of options were identified. Most of the options have >to do with what to do with the items at levels 1,2 and 3 if a two level >system was adopted. > >The following options were considered: > >1. three levels (as current) > > I think I've expressed my opinion on this option. >2. two levels (everything in 3 is moved out of guidelines > and put in advisory/guide) > > I would approve of this approach. I would also approve of leaving an informative section of "best practices" within each guideline. >3. two levels (some of level 3 is moved to advisory/guide, > some of level 3 is moved up to level 2) > > I think it's safe to assume that some L3 items would try to migrate upward as we debate them. >4. two levels where everything from 3 is combined into 2 > >5. two levels where everything in 3 is moved up to level 2 > and certain items from level 2 are moved up to level 1 > > I disapprove of these two. In my opinion, the point of the debate is not to compress the levels for the sake of compressing them. It's to create two reasonable conformance levels authors can choose from, and avoid creating an unreasonable level that only causes confusion. >6. one level which is normative (which includes level 1 > and some of level 2 SCs), rest is informative provisions > > I'm surprised, but intrigued. Did the group determine which/how many level 2 SCs would be included? >7. three levels, where level 3 is divided into several > categories that people can claim conformance to. > > >RE: #7 - the L3 SCs would be grouped by categories such as "Media" or >"Seizure". Some of these would have just one SC in them. People could >claim Level 2 conformance plus conformance to the "Media" items at level 3. >They could also claim conformance to Level 3 if they wished. > > At first glance, this one looks good, but doesn't solve much. It still allows people to overclaim conformance, and it also creates divisions among disabilities, which I thought we decided not to do. Disability-specific checklists are something that could go into advisory or informative text just as successfully. - m
Received on Friday, 17 June 2005 00:25:58 UTC