Re: alternative proposal for conformance models

I made a scratch pad with my proposal
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1B2UyH02Xo0BgQJ6mzz3QGQN8zXmGSQk-pCALQdcNECQ/edit?usp=sharing>
. It is slightly modified based on people feedback.
Feel free to leave comments and I will try and integrate them in.

On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 5:58 PM Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com> wrote:

> .
>
> I had a lot of problems with the conformance  models proposed.
>
> So here is the outline of an alternative proposal.
>
> We take it in two steps.
> *Step one: H*ave agreement that we make a two groups like core
> and supplemental. Or three groups. Whatever the group decides. (personally I
> think four groups makes more sense)
>
> *Step two:* We agree, with strong consensus, on  clear criteria, that can
> be applied consistently across all requirements , on what goes in what
> group.
> We also address all issues for example, why can assestions be in the
> core group?
>
> My groups of criteria would be perquisite, core, and supplemental.
> Conformance levels  can be bronze, silver and gold :
>
>    - 1. Perquisite: This must have very clear  and basic criteria, that a
>    clear majority of us can agree and  apply to criteria. An example of what
>    this might include is perceivable and does no harm. This would include ARIA
>    and basic accessible architecture so the content can be mapped to the
>    accessibility API of the operating system and it can be processed.
>    - 2. Core by disability type: All of this would be* required for the
>    useability of the content by people with disabilities.* All WCAG A
>    conformance would be included plus some AA and things for coga.  Core and
>    prerequisite  must be done for  bronze level conformance. We could have it
>    separated by a functional need/disability group.  Then a policy maker can
>    choose to say something like we have a prerequisite, and  bronze for
>    functional needs groups A and B this year, and will do the other groups in
>    the next year.
>    - 3. Supplemental by functional needs. Supplemental cytheria needs
>    make it easy/optimized  for people with disabilities. Divided by
>    functional need. Here you can have a percentage and choose what to do.  For
>    example:
>       - For silver conformance, it is  a lowish percentage of
>       Supplemental criteria.
>       - For gold  conformance it is a higher percentage of  Supplemental
>       criteria.
>
>
> It needs work but I think it is a direction. If we like the direction I am
> happy to work out the issues with it.
>
> --
> All the best
>
> Lisa Seeman-Horwitz
>
> LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>
>