Revised Conformance Section

Here is a revised conformance section.

 

Changes made besides editorial cleanup to make sentences complete and read
and translate better

 

1.	Added some subtitles to break up sections and make topic change
easier to follow


2.	Added the following note right after first mention of testing

Note: For each success criteria there are techniques listed that are
sufficient to meet them. Each technique has a test to determine whether it
has been successfully implemented. If the test(s) for a "sufficient"
technique or combination of techniques is passed then the working group
would consider that success criterion met. However, passing all tests for
all techniques is not necessary. Nor is it necessary to meet a success
criterion using one of the sufficient techniques. There may be other
techniques which are not documented by the working group that would also
meet the success criterion.



3.	added the following in response to a public  comments saying that we
should state explicitly that you pass success criteria that don't apply to
your technology

-          If a success criterion relates to a technology that you are not
using (e.g. you don't have any multimedia on your site) then you
automatically meet that success criterion since you don't have any
multimedia on your site that does not meet the success criterion



4.	changed "level 1" to  "level A" for conformance

 

5.	set Triple-A conformance to "Half of all level 3 sc that apply to
the content"

-          did this to make it possible to get level 3

-          prevents conformance because things don't apply

-          encourages people to go beyond level 2 - to push for more

-          alternative is to say half of level 3 period.  

-          there are 18 SC in level 3 (10 or more would almost always apply)

 

6.	changed the baseline examples a bit to eliminate redundancy and
respond to outside comments

 

7.	changed conformance claims from Delivery Units to Web-Pages. 

 

8.	added an optional component to claim that let you list additional SC
that you met beyond a level if you want to

 

9.	Fixed sample conformance claims to not point to real sites and to
match our conformance specs

 

10.	removed ed note - that asked if URI is best method for specifying.
We don't have anything better.

 

11.	Removed comment about sending info in HTTP header - per public
comment

 

12.	Removed comment about downloaded software and did not add anything
to guidelines - because for every example people have been citing counter
examples that indicate that we don't have any bright line.  So we will leave
it to others to define what is web content and what is not. 

 

13.	I removed the following paragraph which seemed to use up a lot of
words but didn't say anything I could discern that could not be derived from
the statements above it.  I suggest that we put this type of discussion in
the "Conformance" section of the Understanding WCAG 2.0 doc when we write
it.   This tries to say things too quickly and sounds like double talk.  And
-as stated above, it doesn't really say anything that wasn't already said I
don't think.    Also had a public comment that this was redundant. 

Editorial Note: "A Web-Page* referred to by a URI conforms to WCAG 2.0 at a
given conformance level only if all content provided by that Web-Page*
conforms at that level. For example, if the Web-Page* provides information
retrieved from a database in response to users' queries, all Web-Page*
containing such information must satisfy the success criteria of WCAG 2.0 to
the level at which conformance is claimed. In the case of content
negotiation, WCAG 2.0 conformance is not required if the user agent requests
a version of the content that does not meet WCAG 2.0 at the specified
conformance level."

 

14.	I removed the following ed note.  I tried to put some text in its
place but could not think of something that worked and didn't create a
potential hole you can drive a truck through.   Looking for suggestions.
(we have a public comment 1787
<http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1787>  against doing
this). 

Editorial Note: We are currently looking at how to handle unknown or
community-contributed, authored units that are created using an aggregator
supplied tool. We are currently considering whether aggregated content would
be judged to conform to WCAG if the aggregator supplied tool can conform to
the Authoring Tool Accessibility Guidelines (ATAG) 2.0. 

 

15.	Added a new section at the end on "how to refer to WCAG 2.0 from
other documents based on discussion with Judy Brewer and Ian Jacobs.  

 

 

 

Unresolved issues

 


1290 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1290>   do we want
a SEPARATE LOGO FOR EACH CONF LEVEL A, AA, AAA. Do we want to talk about it
or require it in the guidelines?  


 


1786 <http://trace.wisc.edu/bugzilla_wcag/show_bug.cgi?id=1786>  Suggest
using EARL for conformance claims 

conformance section should refer to the possibility of using EARL to
provide machine-readable conformance claims.
 



Gregg

------------------------

Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Depts of Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 
< <http://trace.wisc.edu/> http://trace.wisc.edu/> FAX 608/262-8848  
For a list of our list discussions  <http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/>
http://trace.wisc.edu/lists/

The Player for my DSS sound file is at  <http://tinyurl.com/dho6b>
http://tinyurl.com/dho6b 

 <http://trace.wisc.edu:8080/mailman/listinfo/>