Perhaps more for v3: please consider expanding on "partial conformance" idea to encompass something like "substantial conformance"

[peterkorn]

Websites of any substantial size and/or complexity can never be “bug-free”, just like any application/suite of applications of any size and/or complexity can never be bug-free. Please consider expanding on the “partial conformance” idea/direction, toward something like “substantial conformance” or “substantial support” for WCAG A/AA/AAA SCs, that allows websites/companies to make a claim that conveys substantial value to customers about the accessibility of their website, that falls shy of a claim of perfection (which few if any can honestly make). I think this would best be done with a new term (vs. a redefinition of the existing conformance definition).

[awkawk]

Thank you for commenting. For more information about how the AG WG will process this issue, see the following:

• Issue Processing - How the WG will discuss the issue
• Issue Resolution - Identifying and responding to the official WG response
• Issue Notification - How to limit notifications from GitHub

[DavidMacDonald]

I think this is worth considering for the next major rewrite.

[awkawk]

[Official WG response]
Thank you for your comment. This would be a substantial change to the WCAG 2.0 conformance model and that is out of scope for WCAG 2.1 as chartered. This is an important topic that we need to keep on the radar for the future, so we will mark this issue as with the "defer" label to ensure that it is re-considered, particularly for the "silver" project.

[awkawk]

The WG decided on the above response, so we changed the text in the comment containing the proposed response to read "[Official WG Response]". Please confirm is you are satisfied with the response within 3 days. If we haven't heard a response by then we will regard the resolution as satisfactory.