Re: Extension levels

Hi Josh,

I agree with #1-4.

Double A seems to be the existing relevant measure at least in the US
as legal settlements increasingly reference it. For evidence consult:
http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/wcagwg/settlements/aa.html

I suspect AA is the standard or policy for many universities. I can
start researching that if it would be useful.

IMHO assuming a WCAG 2.0 AA barwill help facilitate ease of
understanding and in turn uptake of extensions for Web designers and
developers, policy makers, legal entities, purchasing agents,
teachers, and students, vendors etc.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

On 10/16/15, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Another topic that we would like your input on is 'Extension Levels'.
> You can see the minutes from this topic here, as well as the current
> survey. [1] [2]
>
> We asked the group if extensions should have 'levels' similar to current
> WCAG SCs. We asked "Specifically related to the conformance structure,
> what approach do you believe best?" The current answers/results to this
> question are:
>
> Extensions should have levels    4
> Extensions should assume a WCAG 2.0 AA base    8
> Conformance claims for extensions should have the same level as the
> page's WCAG 2.0 conformance claim    2
>
> So the majority are in favour of a WCAG 2.0 AA base for extensions.
>
> Assuming then that the group are in favour of levels for extensions,
> then some options to consider are:
>
> 1) All extensions would be at a single particular level (AA).
> 2) Extension levels would map to the conformance claim level.
> 3) A higher level claim could map to/include a lower level extension,
> but a lower level extension could not map to/ include a higher level
> extension.
> 4) You can only make any extension claim when you have achieved a AA
> level of conformance.
>
> What do you think?
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2015/10/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html
> [2] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/extension_req/
> --
> Joshue O Connor/Andrew Kirkpatrick
> WCAG working group co-chairs
-- 
Laura L. Carlson

On 10/16/15, Joshue O Connor <josh@interaccess.ie> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Another topic that we would like your input on is 'Extension Levels'.
> You can see the minutes from this topic here, as well as the current
> survey. [1] [2]
>
> We asked the group if extensions should have 'levels' similar to current
> WCAG SCs. We asked "Specifically related to the conformance structure,
> what approach do you believe best?" The current answers/results to this
> question are:
>
> Extensions should have levels    4
> Extensions should assume a WCAG 2.0 AA base    8
> Conformance claims for extensions should have the same level as the
> page's WCAG 2.0 conformance claim    2
>
> So the majority are in favour of a WCAG 2.0 AA base for extensions.
>
> Assuming then that the group are in favour of levels for extensions,
> then some options to consider are:
>
> 1) All extensions would be at a single particular level (AA).
> 2) Extension levels would map to the conformance claim level.
> 3) A higher level claim could map to/include a lower level extension,
> but a lower level extension could not map to/ include a higher level
> extension.
> 4) You can only make any extension claim when you have achieved a AA
> level of conformance.
>
> What do you think?
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2015/10/13-wai-wcag-minutes.html
> [2] https://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/35422/extension_req/
> --
> Joshue O Connor/Andrew Kirkpatrick
> WCAG working group co-chairs
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Monday, 19 October 2015 13:48:29 UTC