Use Assertions for an additive conformance model

[WilcoFiers]

What if when a website / app asserts that some non-bronze outcome/guideline is met, that assertion makes that outcome / guideline required for bronze? For example take "2.3.3 Animation from Interactions" from WCAG 2.1, let's say that becomes required under silver. If a site has an assertion that says they conform to this guideline, that assertions means they are now required to meet it even to conform to bronze.

Put in other words: If you say you've done something, you are required to have done that thing under bronze.

What I like about this is that it creates a more incremental path to building out an organizations accessibility. It shifts the conversation from a non-negotiable list of all-or-nothing requirements to one where an organization has to communicate with their users what to expect, and what not to expect. Users can then use that information to make a more informed decisions between different vendors.

[GreggVan]

In WCAG 2.0 discussions — we did not require any assertions be made — not even to conformance — in order to conform. We did this because some companies found that they could conform - but they could not ever assert that they conformed (lawyers wouldnt let them) So if we required they assert conformance to conform - they would never be able to conform. (Note that VPATs NEVER say that a company CONFORMs. Only that a company "supports" a requirement — with space for notes ) For WGAG3 - FOR THE ONE MODEL WE DISCUSSED (and there has been no decision as to what model we use so…) But for that one model We have only talked about assertions being used at Silver or Gold levels. For Bronze you need to conform if you assert to not. And you can’t get silver if you don’t already have bronze So an assertion at silver level would not seem to have any affect on what you did at bronze. Since you already met all the Bronze before you got to silver. But all of the above — is based on the one model we talked about. I don’t think there is any firm decision about anything on W3 yet — so I don’t think we can answer any questions. Is this helpful? gregg

…

------------------------------ Gregg Vanderheiden ***@***.***

On Sep 6, 2023, at 5:27 AM, Wilco Fiers ***@***.***> wrote: What if when a website / app asserts that some non-bronze outcome/guideline is met, that assertion makes that outcome / guideline required for bronze? For example take "2.3.3 Animation from Interactions" from WCAG 2.1, let's say that becomes required under silver. If a site has an assertion that says they conform to this guideline, that assertions means they are now required to meet it even to conform to bronze. Put in other words: If you say you've done something, you are required to have done that thing under bronze. What I like about this is that it creates a more incremental path to building out an organizations accessibility. It shifts the conversation from a non-negotiable list of all-or-nothing requirements to one where an organization has to communicate with their users what to expect, and what not to expect. Users can then use that information to make a more informed decisions between different vendors. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#22>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACNGDXUJGWMG7UASQQE766DXZBT3TANCNFSM6AAAAAA4NIDC44>. You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.