No definition of what constitutes an A, AA, or AAA conformance Level

[Helixopp]

There does not appear to be any clear definition of what parameters a success criteria must meet in order to qualify for any particular conformance level.

In order to be considered Conformance Level A does a success criteria have meet a certain level of severity, as in if not met it will severely adversely impact the user.

Likewise is an AA Conformance Level less severe/impactful? And so on.

Or is it that Level A Conformance is attributed to easy fixes, slightly more complicated issues are deemed AA Level, etc.?

Accessibility consulting companies are assigning severity levels to WCAG Success Criteria (critical, moderate, serious, etc.)which seem to be largely based on conformance level.

This is extremely subjective, and dangerously misleading. Lack of transparency of what criteria are required to be met for each conformance level is partly to blame.

If such information does exist it is too difficult to find.

[patrickhlauke]

From memory, the decision of which level was assigned to each SC relates back to the old concept of Priority from WCAG 1.0 https://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-WEBCONTENT/#priorities but it does indeed seem that this has not been ported as such to the WCAG 2.x documents.

I do think that your question partly mixes up different concepts though: the level for an SC has been set, it is what is is. and WCAG is binary ... you either pass or fail an SC, and in order to claim conformance to a particular level, you as developer must address all SCs at that level (and any level underneath that chosen level, i.e. for AA conformance need to fully address all A and AA). there's no vagueness/wiggle room there.

However, it's clear that beyond the binary pass/fail, there are always nuances in how bad a failure actually is in the context of a page/site as a whole. That is something that can't be absolutely and unambiguously defined in the spec, as it's so heavily dependent on context. And THAT is usually what agencies/testers try to indicate through their own additional severity rankings. It still doesn't change anything in terms of the binary pass/fail and the need to satisfy all SCs for your chosen conformance level, but is a subjective extra categorisation that testers give solely to help developers prioritise remediation. They still have to remediate everything that fails, but it acknowledges that some fixes will likely be easier or more impactful or important. I don't think that part can ever be made unambiguous and purely objective.

Accessibility consulting companies are assigning severity levels to WCAG Success Criteria (critical, moderate, serious, etc.)which seem to be largely based on conformance level.

Can't speak to what other shops do, but we (TetraLogical) base our severity levels primarily on the real-world impact a fail has on actual users, regardless of SC level.

Having said all that, agree it would be nice to include a bit of high-level rationale about A/AA/AAA in the non-normative explanatory documentation to just give a feel for why SCs were slotted into the different levels.

[mraccess77]

It was my understanding that Level A was for items that can't be worked around even with accessibility features or assistive technology and that they are barriers even with other common technologies being present. Some items such as contrast were slotted AA because at the time there were ways to use custom stylesheets for instance to change the text color or contrast and for SC 1.4.4 use of screen magnification software to enlarge the text. For other SC like 1.2.3 and 1.2.5 (and others) the SC at A and AA built on each other to provide layers of access to different degrees.

AAA items are ones that may not be able to be met in all situations so they had to be moved to AAA.

[alastc]

There is an explanation in the understanding docs here: https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/conformance#levels

As Patrick mentioned, it doesn't (and cannot) take into account the context of the issue, so people assigning severity should use other factors.

I appreciate is is hard to find, but where would you have looked for it in the first place? Perhaps we can use that information to add a link in a useful place.

[Helixopp]

To Patrick’s point the only somewhat acceptable explanation is in WCAG 1.0. But since 2.0 isn’t necessarily some extension of 1.0 that isn’t really satisfactory. Plus WCAG 1.0 refers to web documents not websites or web pages:

5. Conformance

This section defines three levels of conformance to this document:

• Conformance Level "A": all Priority 1 checkpoints are satisfied;
• Conformance Level "Double-A": all Priority 1 and 2 checkpoints are satisfied;
• Conformance Level "Triple-A": all Priority 1, 2, and 3 checkpoints are satisfied;

4. Priorities

Each checkpoint has a priority level assigned by the Working Group based on the checkpoint's impact on accessibility.

[Priority 1] A Web content developer must satisfy this checkpoint. Otherwise, one or more groups will find it impossible to access information in the document. Satisfying this checkpoint is a basic requirement for some groups to be able to use Web documents. [Priority 2] A Web content developer should satisfy this checkpoint. Otherwise, one or more groups will find it difficult to access information in the document. Satisfying this checkpoint will remove significant barriers to accessing Web documents. [Priority 3] A Web content developer may address this checkpoint. Otherwise, one or more groups will find it somewhat difficult to access information in the document. Satisfying this checkpoint will improve access to Web documents.

Some checkpoints specify a priority level that may change under certain (indicated) conditions.

[Helixopp]

This creates 2 problems:

1.Prioritizing conformance levels as a tester, developer, manager;

2. W3C WAI members developing success criteria don’t have uniform, standardized, instructions on how to determine appropriate conformance level of a new success criterion.

Having gone through the process during our 2.2 revision I felt like the conformance level determination process was very ad hoc. I also feel like the determination of what gets approved as a success criterion is very ad hoc.

[Helixopp]

This WCAG 2.x definition does not define anything about any of the conformance levels. It simply says A is minimum A must be satisfied in addition to AA to conform to AA and don for AAA:

Conformance Level: One of the following levels of conformance is met in full.

• For Level A conformance (the minimum level of conformance), the Web pagehttps://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/conformance#dfn-web-pagesatisfieshttps://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/conformance#dfn-satisfies-a-success-criterion all the Level A Success Criteria, or a conforming alternate versionhttps://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/conformance#dfn-conforming-alternate-version is provided.
• For Level AA conformance, the Web page satisfies all the Level A and Level AA Success Criteria, or a Level AA conforming alternate version is provided.
• For Level AAA conformance, the Web page satisfies all the Level A, Level AA and Level AAA Success Criteria, or a Level AAA conforming alternate version is provided.

• https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/conformance#conformance-requirements Understanding Conformance | WAI | W3Chttps://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/conformance#conformance-requirements w3.orghttps://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/conformance#conformance-requirements [favicon.ico]https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG21/Understanding/conformance#conformance-requirements

[mraccess77]

From the understanding conformance document

The success criteria were assigned to one of the three levels of conformance by the working group after taking into consideration a wide range of interacting issues. Some of the common factors evaluated when setting the level included:

• whether the success criterion is essential (in other words, if the success criterion isn't met, then even assistive technology can't make content accessible)
• whether it is possible to satisfy the success criterion for all Web sites and types of content that the success criterion would apply to (e.g., different topics, types of content, types of Web technology)
• whether the success criterion requires skills that could reasonably be achieved by the content creators (that is, the knowledge and skill to meet the success criterion could be acquired in a week's training or less)
• whether the success criterion would impose limits on the "look & feel" and/or function of the Web page. (limits on function, presentation, freedom of expression, design or aesthetic that the success criterion might place on authors)
• whether there are no workarounds if the success criterion is not met

[Helixopp]

Again, you have to define Level A equals this Level AA equals this. etc. all of these citations are just general

[patrickhlauke]

FWIW, I agree with @Helixopp that there should at least be a very broad definition for what constitutes a Level A, AA, AAA SC - along similar lines as the broad WCAG 1.0 priority definitions, as currently that's not properly spelled out.

(also, hope you don't mind @Helixopp, but I edited your email follow-up comments to remove the previous messages that they were replying to)

[Helixopp]

No worries. Thanks for the support. I would rather the definitions be detailed and specific, rather than general. Ideally that definition would explain publicly what requirements were met for any SC to be deemed a particular conformance level. That same definition would govern our process in nominating snd approving SC’s for any particular conformance level. Given that WCAG is a standard that process should be standardized.

[GreggVan]

There is a very clear definition of what goes in each level.
The level assigned to each provision is the level that the working group reached consensus on for that SC. That is the only definition of the level of each SC.

If you are looking for a formula - or set of checkboxes -- you won't find them. There were many different factors that went into each decision.

I can't speak definitively for 2.1 and 2.2 but for 2.0 -- in each case (almost every case) there were those that wanted to put a provision into another level than where it ended up. In the end - it was the level that everyone could reach a consensus on. That everyone could accept after sometime short and sometimes long debate and discussion(s).

There was even debate about having two or three levels. At one point it looked like a majority wanted to go to 2 levels. But when asked it turned out half wanted to put level AA into level A and half wanted to put Level AA into level AAA. In the end -- what people could agree on was the three levels with the SC distributed as they were.

I won't repeat all the different considerations -- since many of the are listed already. But those are just a subset of the 30 or 40 different things that people brought up in arguing for an SC to be in one level vs another.

[Helixopp]

I understand that. But without a formula the process is arbitrary. What you described was an arbitrary negotiating process. Not a scientific or credible method that gives defining characteristics to each conformance level. That’s a huge problem. The conformance levels must be defendable. It’s not defense say well we all agreed on it.

[patrickhlauke]

From the understanding conformance document

The success criteria were assigned to one of the three levels of conformance by the working group after taking into consideration a wide range of interacting issues. Some of the common factors evaluated when setting the level included:

• whether the success criterion is essential (in other words, if the success criterion isn't met, then even assistive technology can't make content accessible)
• whether it is possible to satisfy the success criterion for all Web sites and types of content that the success criterion would apply to (e.g., different topics, types of content, types of Web technology)
• whether the success criterion requires skills that could reasonably be achieved by the content creators (that is, the knowledge and skill to meet the success criterion could be acquired in a week's training or less)
• whether the success criterion would impose limits on the "look & feel" and/or function of the Web page. (limits on function, presentation, freedom of expression, design or aesthetic that the success criterion might place on authors)
• whether there are no workarounds if the success criterion is not met

Something like the above, combined with an explanation that - in naive terms - "Based on these considerations, Level A SCs are more critical, Level AA slightly less so, and Level AAA tend to not apply to all situations and impose limits..." or something. No doubt, that would be contentious when spelled out like that, though...

Maybe at the very least having something like the above bullet points though that give an insight into the rationale for having different levels.

[Helixopp]

Thanks, Patrick.

“Maybe at the very least having something like the above bullet points though that give an insight into the rationale for having different levels.” – This is what we need. Something that says Level A conformance is assigned to success criteria that....

Then list all aspects of that explanation that are uniformly applied to all Level A success criteria.

And do the same for the other conformance levels. But you can’t just say, well here are 5 or 6 considerations that we take into account for every conformance level, then we vote, negotiate, or whatever, on which level to assign each S.C.

That is arbitrary, inconsistent, and not standardized. I do find this one ridiculous, but whatever: (that is, the knowledge and skill to meet the success criterion could be acquired in a week's training or less)

[mbgower]

There does not appear to be any clear definition of what parameters a success criteria must meet in order to qualify for any particular conformance level.

I'm going to suggest that the only time this is relevant is when the working group is coming up with new success criteria (and I've asked similar questions at that point). From an author perspective, one chooses the conformance level that meets the needs of one's client (or the regulations that are in effect), and one completes all the criteria that are indicated for that level.

Accessibility consulting companies are assigning severity levels to WCAG Success Criteria (critical, moderate, serious, etc.)which seem to be largely based on conformance level.

Do you have examples of this? That is not my experience. I understand there was intention by some of the participants in 2.0 that level A criteria would be considered more critical to meet (and therefore have a higher level of severity, or at least priority, when not met); however, there is not any normative language that supports this. Further, in reality, the primary measure of severity tends to be a subjective understanding of its impact on users, either in regard to the degree it renders content unusable by specific users (such as those reliant on the keyboard API), or in regard to the number and types of users affected. Finally, the context of a specific page has a great deal to do with the relative severity cause by failing any one criterion's requirements.

[Helixopp]

I would highly disagree that this is only important when developing new success criteria. For countries, municipalities, governments, etc. that require a specific conformance level as part of a law, this may be of less importance, but that’s not all countries, and not the United States.

Furthermore, laws can be changed. If someone where to bring to the attention of EU parliament, that WCAG conformance levels were arbitrarily established, without any uniformity, or criteria by level, it could easily be argued that the law needed change.

Aside from that, as professionals, for the W3C’s own credibility, this is important. We shouldn’t just shrug our shoulders because WCAG got away with it.

It is this kind of issue that has given rise to the need for a WCAG 3.0 and confusion around comprehending 2.0. We understand it because we live and breathe it. We need to make it understandable for everyone else also.

3:30 into this video https://youtu.be/jC_7NnRdYb0?si=9H7wIbSjIuC_e_jT is an example.

[patrickhlauke]

I understand there was intention by some of the participants in 2.0 that level A criteria would be considered more critical to meet (and therefore have a higher level of severity when not met); however, there is not any normative language that supports this.

The whole idea that there's Level A, AA, AAA, and that they are additive (to meet A, you just do As; to meet AA, you have to pass A and AA; for AAA conformance, you must meet A, AA, AAA) does set up a hierarchy, showing that A is more "foundational" than AA so more important to meet, etc.

[mraccess77]

Most global standards and regulations call out A and AA which indicates to me that both are needed to bring a sufficient level of accessibility to disabled people.

At the same time, folks always want to prioritize issues - clearly some things such as flashing content are highest priority because of the impact - but other requirements may also be priority based on the factors previously discussed. However, the standard itself can't really prioritize one persons need above another - so the standard can't really get into that - but others can try to make determinations based on impact and biggest benefit to user needs.

[Helixopp]

My point is clearly defining what conformance levels mean, not how people use them to prioritize issues. The fact that people use conformance levels to prioritize issues reinforces the importance of clearly articulating uniform parameters for each conformance level and consistently applying them

[Helixopp]

Also that statement about global standards is not true. There are no global standards. The UN has the CRPD Treaty which only applies to U.N. countries. Furthermore, it only requires countries to have disability rights policies. It does not require them to conform to any WCAG level or even to use WCAG in their policies. Each country does their own thing. The EU has a regional EU policy but none of these are “global”. I understand the desire to vehemently defend WCAG but this is indefensible, which is one reason why we need a WCAG 3.0. At the very least we need to resolve this issue.

[patrickhlauke]

Most global standards and regulations call out A and AA which indicates to me that both are needed to bring a sufficient level of accessibility to disabled people.

but then even with that, it shows that AAA SCs are considered "less of a priority" / "less important", so again this is evidence that there is a hierarchy (whether intentional or not)

[mbgower]

@Helixopp I'm going to dodge all the commentary so far and try to answer your original statement and questions.

Proposed draft response

There does not appear to be any clear definition of what parameters a success criteria must meet in order to qualify for any particular conformance level.

Correct, there is nothing published in normative text in 2.x. The Understanding levels of Conformance subsection previously referenced provides a framework, but no clear delineation. Rationales that went into level assignment between A and AA are not included in the specification and can only be inferred.

In order to be considered Conformance Level A does a success criteria have meet a certain level of severity, as in if not met it will severely adversely impact the user[?]

No, level A criteria do not have to meet a certain level of severity. There is no clear relationship between a criterion's stated level and the severity of an issue resulting from that criterion not being met. This would be impossible to provide, given the broad range of scenarios in which any criterion may be considered, or the degree to which a criterion's requirements are not met.

As well, there appear to be no regulatory frameworks that assign increased penalties to non-conformance based on the level of a failing success criterion. If such existed, that could potentially be one way in which conformance level could affect someone's assessment. But even in such a hypothetical, that would arguably affect the priority the issue was given, not its severity. Without the context of the page, it is not feasible to assign severity.

Likewise is an AA Conformance Level less severe/impactful? And so on.

Just as there is no correlation at Level A, there is none at level AA. Given that level AAA is not part of a regulatory framework in any known jurisdiction, failures of AAA are less severe strictly from a compliance perspective. The relative impact on any user (one way of measuring severity) of an unmet success criterion is again going to be influenced by any number of factors that are independent of the level classification.

[mbgower]

I understand the desire to vehemently defend WCAG

Given pointed past comments elsewhere about various failings of the standard by pretty much everyone involved in this thread, I don't think anyone involved could be accused of vehemently defending it. I think everyone involved has a fairly mature attitude towards a useful but imperfect standard, so I suggest we set aside such language.

[Helixopp]

Comments such as “it is clearly defined” and it I used in “global standards” (therefore it’s good though) are actually defending its current state.

The majority of comments have been implying that it’s good enough, leave it alone.

In my opinion those are defenses. I am entitled to have my own opinions. Nothing in any of my comments are aggressive, or adversarial. They are constructive. Let’s not try to imply that I act otherwise, please. My reputation does not deserve that implication.

[Helixopp]

Let me put it this way. I am saying we need to define conformance levels clearly. We need to create a definitive structure. One that explains the methodology to the public which we also use when creating new success criteria. I know we are working on 3.0 now and 2.x is kind of by the wayside but it still deserves attention.

The prioritization aspect is not the important part of. Y issue. The definition of conformance level is the heart of it.

[Helixopp]

These are things we need to pay attention to while developing 3.0. This entire conformance level just seems so arbitrary. If a form of conformance level is used in 3.0 it needs to be clearly defined and applied uniformly across the development of all guidelines. I still think we should provide some kind of documentation in 2.x clearly resolving this lack of definition.

[Helixopp]

For the record: my concern isn’t really with how regulators apply it but more so general practitioners that aren’t really well versed in the industry.

[patrickhlauke]

@mbgower

Rationales that went into level assignment between A and AA are not included in the specification and can only be inferred.

But beyond that, it's not just the rationales that are not included. It's the actual explanation of what the different "Levels" actually are/represent/intend to convey. Without splitting hairs over whether it's about assigning "severity" or "priority" or anything else, WCAG simply doesn't elaborate what it means that some of these SCs are marked as A, AA, or AAA. And clearly, because they are cumulative, there is an undisputable hierarchy to these. None of that is explained.

[Helixopp]

Thank you, Patrick. The question is: should we do something about that? At the very least should we add a note so people understand that from the start? I say yes.

By the way, I still dig you, Mike [image]

[mbgower]

But beyond that, it's not just the rationales that are not included. It's the actual explanation of what the different "Levels" actually are/represent/intend to convey. Without splitting hairs over whether it's about assigning "severity" or "priority" or anything else, WCAG simply doesn't elaborate what it means that some of these SCs are marked as A, AA, or AAA. And clearly, because they are cumulative, there is an undisputable hierarchy to these. None of that is explained.

WCAG is an authoring guide. It contains very little about regulation or even about reporting. I suspect that is intentional. Given multiple jurisdictions have applied the authoring guides into a regulatory framework over more than 15 years, it seems difficult to argue that the existing language needs to be overhauled for 2.x (WCAG 3 is a different matter). I don't think any of the regulatory bodies got it perfect, btw, but a need to differentiate criteria by level wouldn't even enter into my list of top problems. WCAG2ICT is likely to help far more.

I don't think differentiating between "severity" and "priority" is splitting hairs. They are meaningfully different things. IMO, trying to use levels to predict in any way an issue's severity will result in total failure. There may be some foundational grounds for using levels to offer guidance to regulatory bodies around prioritization, but I find even that fairly problematic once one gets down to the details.

[Helixopp]

Again, at the very least that explanation needs to be provided as a warning. The document itself calls Level A a minimum level of accessibility, which contradicts your point. I would argue that countries/regulators choose a specific conformance level to write into law because they assume it’s indicative of a specific level of accessibility.

[patrickhlauke]

I'm really struggling to understand here why on the one hand, clearly there is some notion or idea of what the levels represent (otherwise, how could the WG have assigned a level to each SC?), but at the same time there seems to be a fervent desire not to explain what the levels actually are/represent?

yes, it's an authoring guide...and we're told what the considerations were to determine which level an SC should fall under, but then it doesn't say what that grouping actually means? why was an SC marked as being in "foo", another in "bar", and the other in "baz"? what do SCs grouped under "baz" have in common then?

For what it's worth, when talking to clients, I have always explained the differences in levels and what they mean by leaning on the priority explanation from back in the WCAG 1.0 days, as that at least spelled things out in an understandable manner. And I suspect that old hands in the industry have been doing pretty much the same when asked, cold, "what's the difference between, say, a level A SC and a level AAA SC?". It's a common question from clients who are unaccustomed to that categorisation. Would you answer "oh, it doesn't actually mean anything"?

[Helixopp]

+1

[patrickhlauke]

I mean, taking into consideration the points listed in the second part of https://www.w3.org/WAI/WCAG22/Understanding/conformance#levels one can infer that Level A SCs mostly have the following characteristics - they are:

• essential
• can be satisfied for all Web sites and types of content
• only require skills that can reasonably be achieved by the content creators
• impose the least limits on the "look & feel" and/or function of the Web page
• have no workarounds if the success criterion is not met

and as we then move to Levels AA and then AAA, some of these points hold less and less true. can we at least agree on that?

[patrickhlauke]

and yes, actual priority/severity that a client needs to give to fixing issues relating to SCs should not only be guided by the level of the failing SC ... but that this does indeed play a role - you wouldn't generally assign a high priority to non-essential, niche, extremely hard to achieve, heavily look/feel impacting problem that has lots of workarounds for users available

[Helixopp]

+1

[GreggVan]

Repeating since I see some commenters decided to not read the previous comment and just jump into the middle.

I co-chaired WCAG 2.0 -- so can speak to the placement of all the WCAG 2.0 SC. I leave it to the latter chairs to say how the decisions were made after that.

The criterion for inclusion at each level in WCAG 2.0 is simple and very clear. And there was only one.

• Each SC was placed at the level that the working group reached consensus that it should be at.

There were lots of factors that were used, and they differed between working group members. There were different groups (consumers, industry, academia, practitioners, etc.) who placed different priorities on different factors. But even within each group different individuals placed different priorities on different factors.

in Short

• There were lots of considerations - and those are often cited as the "rationale" or "rules" but they were just considerations or factors. And different working group members and sectors rated things differently (plus factors and minus factors).
• And there was no formula - and there were no hard and fast rules except 2: --that the SC had to have high-inter-rater-reliability for testing to be in Level A or AA
  -- and the SC was placed at the level the Working group reached consensus that it be at.
• not everyone wanted to put many of the SC in the level they ended up at. But in the end, all working group members 'could accept' them at a level, and that is the level they were assigned to.

The process was not arbitrary, nor was it formula-based. It was consensus-based, as all consensus standards are.

It was also subject to numerous public comments and CR. And no objections were filed on its completion.

I know we would all like a formula. And the working group at the time spent a lot of time on several occasions trying to create one -- but was unable to in advance, or in retrospect. The factors and interplay turned out to be just too complicated for that. I suspect that this will be just a true in the next series.

All the best. G

[Helixopp]

You say it’s clear. But, you bring a bias with you, having been present for the process. It is clearly not clear, to a whole lot of other people that were not in that room, which is the majority of the world. A consensus can still be arbitrary.

A vote without clear parameters written out, and consistently applied in a uniform manner is not standardized. That makes it arbitrary.

This is a very elitist sort of approach. I know many WCAG 2.0’ers that were in that room. Some did not have disabilities. Some did not have Assistive Technology background, some did not have programing background. Without a set formula how were they to reliably judge? Did you expect them to just trust you, or the other people in the room?

Many objections to WCAG 2.0 have been articulated since then. Actually shortly after That is what spurred the early research into drsfting a 3.0. This is what I am told from the W3C point person herself that started that research.

[Helixopp]

My ultimate point for resolution is this:

We need to publish a warning/caution/note that explains what conformance levels are not (they are not levels of severity or priority). It should be made clear that there isn’t any particular standardized method that was used to define or assign them.

Good intentions aside, we do not do WCAG any justice by allowing such misconceptions to continue.

[Helixopp]

To keep the topic on track: the issue of how each S.C. was assigned to a conformance level is secondary to the primary issue of each conformance level not having a definition to which a person can even judge whether or not a particular S.C. meets that level.

[mraccess77]

I'd also mention that 4 of the Level A criteria are also listed in the conformance requirement for non-interference. Their placement there would also suggest a level of impact of those criterion on the ability to reach conforming content when present on non-conforming pages.

For WCAG 3 I believe the best approach would be to put all requirements that meet the threshold at a single level - for example, bronze. Essentially this is how A and AA are treated by many - A and AA is really set of requirements and there isn't really a need to distinguish them for conformance purposes and and they should all have equal weight. Although outside of the standard, in practical aspects they may have different priorities/severities - but that is up to someone else to decide.

[GreggVan]

@Helixopp you wrote:

To keep the topic on track: the issue of how each S.C. was assigned to a conformance level is secondary to the primary issue of each conformance level not having a definition to which a person can even judge whether or not a particular S.C. meets that level.

Can you explain your comment/questsion? An SC doesn't meet a level. The SC are in a level. You meet a level by satisfying all of the SC that are in that level.

[GreggVan]

@Helixopp In your other comment - you make a very good point.

My ultimate point for resolution is this: We need to publish a warning/caution/note that explains what conformance levels are not (they are not levels of severity or priority). It should be made clear that there isn’t any particular standardized method that was used to define or assign them. Good intentions aside, we do not do WCAG any justice by allowing such misconceptions to continue.

Things are in level A or AA for a number of reasons. One was priority but it was not the primary. And SC at all levels are critical for some users. And we don't prioritize users. So it would be good to make a comment in understanding that (Other than those are that are named in conformance as being always required ) the SC in level A are not necessarily a higher priority than AA for any given site or content.

[Helixopp]

I never asked a question. I pointed out the fact that there isn’t a definition to conformance levels (A, AA, AAA). That lack of definition has led to professionals telling the public that certain S.C’s are more severe, due to the conformance level they are attributed. It also misleads the public in determining how they implement/follow WCAG.

My issue is that we need to clear this up.

It make WCAG less credible. I don’t want to get into an argument about how some countries incorporating it into law, giving it credibility. It’s the only thing out there so that argument is pretty hollow anyway

[Helixopp]

Thank you. I understand the best intentions. I like WCAG 2.0. I personally think tweaking it rather than doing an entirely new 3.0 would be a better route. I think this kind of note is will go a long way

[mraccess77]

From what I have read AAA was not included in most regulations because the W3C specifically says they don't recommend it being required as it can't be met for all content.

"Note 2: It is not recommended that Level AAA conformance be required as a general policy for entire sites because it is not possible to satisfy all Level AAA Success Criteria for some content."

Regulations then adopted both A and AA - the fact that both have been adopted would seem to indicate that indeed they are both the same priority and severity and one is not above the other. Regulators could have chosen to assign scoring or different timeframes or levels and they chose not to. Other standards like EN 301 549 group them equally as well - so I think there is plenty of evidence showing that A and AA criteria are pretty equal in practice as any one could be very important to any particular user.

[Helixopp]

I find it very strange that we create a standard that includes levels of conformance that we don’t require or recommend. A standard is a set of requirements.

We aren’t awarding people for best practices like LEED does for energy efficiency. There’s really no reason to have a AAA conformance level.

[patrickhlauke]

@GreggVan

Each SC was placed at the level that the working group reached consensus that it should be at.

just going by this...that's just a circular argument. to reach consensus, the WG members must have had an idea, a rationale, an inkling, an interpretation, of what each level actually meant. and it would be nice to just make this clear somewhere in the understanding at least (coupled with the idea of inter-rater reliability ... and then perhaps revisiting the sentences that in the end do seem to suggest that A is more important/critical, and that AAA is not recommended as a goal for all content)

[detlevhfischer]

I'm failing to understand the heat in this debate, and do not see the urgency of putting out some rationale that may be post-factual (is that a word?) while we urgently need that time to move WCAG 3.0 forward (not to forget the valuable work of the 2.X "rubbish collection" task force). In practical terms, there are many cases where an AA failure is severe while some A failure may not be. It depends. Even SCs which often seem marginal like "Language of parts" will be utterly critical for something like an online foreign language dictionary. And in practcal terms what counts is that laws and regulations lump together A and AA anyway. I don't see how any customer is usefully served by a generic explanation why the Working Group at some point in time defined what A and AA meant. What counts is impact of the issue.

[patrickhlauke]

no immediate urgency on my part, but it's certainly a big gaping hole at the very heart of WCAG 2.x - which I only just realised I had filled with half-remembered rationalisations that actually came from WCAG 1.0's priority rating. and as it's a topic that does come up from time to time with customers unacquainted with WCAG's structure, and as WCAG 2.x is here to stay in the foreseeable/medium term future, it would be nice to at least acknowledge in the spec somewhere, even with just a simple paragraph. of course, WCAG 3.0 is where the bulk of effort should be directed to, but it's not a zero-sum game.