Re: A different approach to conformance

Since you are a coga leader 

I  have always worried that any  “essential” approach would leave people with cognitive disabilities behind — since so much looks like “makes it easier”  ( an attitude I  know you have run into so often)

I think the case be made that every guideline is “essential”  to some people— so that all guidelines are “essential”. 
There are also people who have one disability -and cognitive as well.     — or even just cognitive at deeper levels

How do we handle essential without saying ‘everything is essential to someone - (i.e. someone who would be just able if you did this if you did this thing that does not seem to be essential for some but is to this person)  ?

I worry that we keep leaving people behind.

I worry that cognitive, language, and learning disability issues keep looking like “usability” issues and not roadblocks - not critical. 

your thoughts? 

G


> On Nov 10, 2025, at 7:43 PM, Lisa Seeman <lisa1seeman@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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>