Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Email: ITI Comments on First Public Working Draft of W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0 (15 - flexible conformance) #457

Closed
jspellman opened this issue Mar 12, 2021 · 5 comments
Closed

Email: ITI Comments on First Public Working Draft of W3C Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 3.0 (15 - flexible conformance) #457

jspellman opened this issue Mar 12, 2021 · 5 comments
Labels
section: conformance Deals with conformance aspect of Silver Subgroup: editors no specific subgroup (default) survey : added in the survey for weekly review in AG and Silver

Comments

@jspellman
Copy link
Contributor

Comment from Email:
from PDF

  1. What do you see as the possible tradeoffs in using a flexible conformance approach? Would you want to see multiple conformance models?

A flexible conformance approach might be a vehicle for addressing the more complicated issues involved in 3rd party content conformance, as well as flexibility in describing the main/primary functions of a web page or view vs. the secondary or tertiary ones. However, multiple conformance models would likely make conformance claims more complicated and confusing. There should be one model for conformance, based on rating and scoped by documenting the sampling, processes, and any other testing performed with an easy way to calculate the conformance level. If it is too complicated, it will be difficult for policy makers to understand what conformance levels can be reasonably expected for technologies to attain that can be included in regulations. More clarity in the specific proposals is needed to give a more detailed response to the question.
@jspellman jspellman added section: conformance Deals with conformance aspect of Silver status: assigned to subgroup ask subgroup for proposal Subgroup: editors no specific subgroup (default) labels Mar 12, 2021
@jspellman
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thank you for your comment. Project members are working on your comment. You may see discussion in the comment thread and we may ask for additional information as we work on it. We will mark the official response when we are finished and close the issue.

@jspellman
Copy link
Contributor Author

Draft Response:

Thank you for your ideas. The Silver Task Force agrees with you that we do not want to make the conformance too complicated. The group continues to vote down having multiple conformance models. While we work through the process of creating a conformance model and way of putting together a conformance claim, it will continue to start off more complicated than we want. As we work through arriving at a more solid conformance model and conformance claim process, we can then start refining and simplifying them.

@jspellman jspellman added survey : ready for proposal or issue response is ready for group review and removed status: assigned to subgroup ask subgroup for proposal labels Dec 9, 2021
@rachaelbradley rachaelbradley added survey : added in the survey for weekly review in AG and Silver and removed survey : ready for proposal or issue response is ready for group review labels Jan 14, 2022
@rachaelbradley
Copy link
Contributor

Revised draft response:

Thank you for your ideas. The Silver Task Force agrees with you that we do not want to make the conformance too complicated. The group continues to vote down having multiple conformance models. While we work through the process of creating a conformance model and way of putting together a conformance claim, it will continue to start off more complicated than we want. As we work through arriving at a more solid conformance model and conformance claim process, we can then start refining and simplifying them. We are closing this issue but are adding a label input-for-refinement to ensure the group considers your point as we move forward.

@alastc
Copy link
Contributor

alastc commented Jan 18, 2022 •
edited

Approved response:

Thank you for your ideas. The Silver Task Force agrees with you that we want to make the conformance more flexible and not too complicated. We are closing this issue but are adding a label input-for-refinement to ensure the group considers your point as we move forward.

@alastc
Copy link
Contributor

alastc commented Jan 18, 2022

The group agreed the response above: https://www.w3.org/2022/01/18-ag-minutes.html#t06

@alastc alastc closed this as completed Jan 18, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
section: conformance Deals with conformance aspect of Silver Subgroup: editors no specific subgroup (default) survey : added in the survey for weekly review in AG and Silver
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@alastc @jspellman @rachaelbradley