- From: 'Jason White' <jasonw@ariel.its.unimelb.edu.au>
- Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2006 12:30:47 +1000
- To: "'WAI WCAG List'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
On Sun, Aug 20, 2006 at 09:07:17PM -0500, Gregg Vanderheiden wrote: > Hmmmm > Interesting. > > We can't use claim - since there may not be one. > > A hypothesized claim at first seems arbitrary. But if you think about it - > one could say... If one is claiming level x conformance for the children's > portion of this website then .... etc. > > Since you are hypothesizing conformance to start with (since there is no > claim) then one could hypothesize scope too. Exactly, and that's all one can do in the absence of a claim (whether published or otherwise). I agree it is possible for a set of Web units to fail to conform at a given level, whereas a proper subset would pass. However, that's always true. The Web as a whole fails to conform, but important subsets of it satisfy the guidelines and are therefore more accessible than the remainder. I don't think there is a problem here. Every assessment of conformance is carried out with respect to a scope, i.e., a set of Web units; what that scope is depends on a conformance claim, or in the absence of one, on the purpose of the evaluation.
Received on Monday, 21 August 2006 02:31:29 UTC