A different approach to conformance

Hi Folk

From the conversation in TPAC, I would like to propose a new approach to
conformance. Note the details are less important than the direction.
The advantages are:

   - This has all the hooks for different policies that work in
   different environments, but we are a step away from making policy ourselves.
   - It focuses our expertease about disability and accessibility for use
   in any policy
   - We can easily change our default suggestions for policy without
   redoing any work
   - This fits into conformance statements as metadata at any level of
   detail - I think even using existing languages.

Anyway, here is *the suggestion*:
* Step 1.* We *make tags* for:

   - functional needs and
   - the extent that a criteria is important or essential for the user.
   (With clear criteria for each level. )

*Step 2. *We can then make some machine understandable *statement for each
outcome *(or methods or other thing). This would use the tags made in step
1.

For example: *This outcome is essential for that function need*

The functional needs are also linked to disabilities.
Note this where the work is, however it is less closely linked to policy so
it should be easier to do.

*Step 3*. We then make an* interface for policies, *that pulls together
outcomes for a policy.
For example, *give me all essential outcome *(Conformance bronze)

We could make it two levels
3a. The simple view would be three or four suggested policies, such as:

   - all  essential outcome
   - all very important outcomes
   - all outcomes

Note these suggestions for policy  are easily changed! It is just an
interface change.

3b. The complex view allows people to make complex statements such as
Make a document of:

   - all very important outcomes and all outcomes for these functional need
   (associated with vision) That would make an accessible site that is
   optimised for people with vision disabilities) or
   -  essential outcome with additional (all) outcomes for critical paths


We can use ontology frameworks like RDF, Owl, or EARL (because ontologies
are fun) but we don't have to. If we do I would be happy to help write it.

-- 
All the best

Lisa Seeman-Horwitz

LinkedIn <http://il.linkedin.com/in/lisaseeman/>, Twitter
<https://twitter.com/SeemanLisa>