Meeting minutes
<alastairc> Request to AG to review WCAG2ICT https://
<alastairc> Scoping WCAG 3 conformance claims https://
Intros & Annoucements
alastairc: Introductions invitation.
@Laura miller: Not typically in AGWG, but going with Phil and others.
alastairc: No other announcements confirmed with others.
WCAG 2 proposed changes https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2026JulSep/0083.html
alastairc: Every other week reminder has been sent via email.
Patrick_H_Lauke: Nothing controversial worth pointing out. There are two proposed errata. Response deadline is in one week.
<kirkwood> scribe?
alastairc: Going to look at 5255 and investigate if that can be backwards compatible.
Request to AG to review WCAG2ICT https://github.com/w3c/wcag2ict/issues/912/
alastairc: Link is in the agenda item, has a big summary. Link to understanding available. This is for all the AAA success criteria in WCAG 2.2
PhilDay: New section for Level AAA. We've tried putting it in with all the other SCs, and ask for comments on those specifically.
… specifically, if you think if the suggested text is appropriate or not. Pulled out individual issues, and commented on each SC.
… There's a structural change of having a separate section and the introductory text.
… there's a diff. We've also got minor changes in the diff too
Daniel: Change log is also available at the bottom of the document.
… doesn't include everything, just the substantial changes.
alastairc: Looks very well-structured thing for people to review. Need at least some of people on this call to take a look. How AAA criteria have been translated through WCAG2ICT, so it's interesting.
bbailey: What's the timing on the review?
Daniel: This is a republish in the working group notes. Target is 2-4 weeks.
alastairc: Review reminder will continue to be on the AGWG agenda, and we will send out a reminder as well
Scoping WCAG 3 conformance claims https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ymkoo3KKShraLXCEPWwxB9WNmZ97V_0BDdhC34ySQ1Y/edit?slide=id.p#slide=id.p alastairc]
alastairc: Next topic is a continuation from last week. Talk about how to scope a WCAG 3 conformance claim.
Slideset: https://
alastairc: Sharing screen using link above.
alastairc: Introduction. What conformance scopes are allowed, and how should people declare scope?
… Ask to please don't use driving laws and analogies in today's meeting, as they don't quite fit, and distract from the topic. Try to think of other examples.
alastairc: Reads slide with terminology.
alastairc: Reads slide: Bottom up: Page/view/process/path
… adding to slide content: WCAG2 provide a normative approach to pick pages to define scope. This was a straighforward way of thinking about tit.
alastairc: Reads slide: What conformance units would be acceptable?
<Zakim> Charles, you wanted to ask for definition of components
Charles: Do you have working definition or recommendation for what constitutes for a component? Is this a definition of a user interface components, or is this just a part of a page?
<alastairc> https://
alastairc: Intended to be parts of a page. We have a definition in wCAG 3 (above). "Grouping of elements for a distinct function"
<Charles> ‘for function’ implies a control
alastairc: implicitly within a page or view for a distinct function.
Matt_King: My understanding of a traditional conformance claim, you're claiming these are conformant.
… my question is... I think this is why VPATs and other types of statements have historically said naively used part of a site, not the whole site.
… should/could be a claim about what conforms and what does NOT conform, so it can be comprehensive of the whole scope. I almost reframed your whole question.
alastairc: If we took a top-down product site approach. If we didn't, and we kept conformance to what it has historically been.
<Charles> would headings be components? could someone say ‘all headings conform in content and level’?
alastairc: There are other avenues too, it is a fairly strict definition. You have to declare a scope and say it conforms or doesn't...
… This is the only reliable way of doing that, and you have to test it to say if it does or doesn't.
… That's a conformance claim and a VPAT isn't a conformance claim.
… It's not a WCAG conformance claim.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to answer Matt
alastairc: if we used a bottom-up approach, it's a question of which components would be acceptable. Assuming pages and views and processes would be.
<Charles> +1 to Matt_King – a part is a part
<Finnberry> It is possible for a component to conform (by itself) but not within the context of a page or site.
Matt_KingIs there a reason a page is listed as part of a product, and all the other things listed are also part of a product...
… is there any reason why we would have any bias at all towards one kind of part versus any other part?
<Zakim> bbailey, you wanted to ask why VPAT for web product not compatible with WCAG 2.0 conformance model?
Rachael: Historically, there was a bias toward page because it had a URL associated with it, and it scoped cleanly. This has changed over time.
alastairc: Paths in the way we've been talking of being essential set of components to complete an activity, but not including the whole page...
… potentially misleading if people declare paths, but then there are things on the page that are included but could be blockers.
… downside to components is if you're testing a component in a component library it might be used on the site differently.
bbailey: Surprised by the statement on slide 4 that a VPAT can't be used, or isn't compatible with WCAG 2 conformance. seems like you fill the WCAG section, it's usable.
alastairc: The way I've spent it used is they tend to refer to the site holistically, rather than a particular product, but generally don't include a set of URLs.
alastairc: Incredibly skeptical that it would include every possible page.
GreggVan: When they site, that's a URL, When the product is a web product, it does include the URL that it applies to, but doesn't always include an entire domain.
<Patrick_H_Lauke> VPAT/ACR lists WCAG criteria. If somebody fills out those sections with "Supports" for each SC ... that's an (implicit) claim that they're conformant, no?
GreggVan: VPATs should never say anything about whether or not they conform. They are carefully structured. They talk about if they support a provision. That support is never really defined.
… it's blank, and you can write anything you want into it.
<HaTheo9> +1 Matt
<Patrick_H_Lauke> if youclaim to "support" every provision of WCAG, are you "compliant" with WCAG?
Matt_King I think it would be worth proposing a resolution Any definable part of a product can be used for.
… I think that URLs in today's world are even more obscure, and there are far more obscure things than a path.
… there are options and hidden things you can defined in a path. This might also be true about components.
… you can talk instances of components, as opposed to the definition of a component in a design system.
… This would be my rationale for suggesting that we say a conformance claim could be made for any definable part of a product.
<bbailey> Noting that VPAT is shorthand for Accessibility Conformance Report (ACR) generated from Voluntary Product Accessibility Template.
GreggVan: Need to ask ourselves if something is useful and is it dangerous?
… First, WCAG does not let you use any URL. if a URL is part of any process, then WCAG says that no URL is part of a process.
<Finnberry> Gregg +1
GreggVan: unless all URLS that are part of the process are conformant.
<Rachael> /me we are trying to avoid analogies
GreggVan: Something to think about is having a path of pages.
<HaTheo9> I don't understand that argument because no one is compelling a conformance claim or scrutinizing it in isolation, as it represents the entire product.
GreggVan: If there is a path with key parts left out, people with disabilities cannot access them.
<Charles> +1 to the point that what is not in scope is as important as what is.
giacomo-petri: I don't understand the problem if someone wants to say there is a specific link to a page, or if product is conformant with WCAG. What is the problem with allowing it?
… Almost all websites are simply non-conformant. No one is calling out conformance for their website.
<kevin> +1 to Giacamo's point
<kirkwood> +1
giacomo-petri: we can provide an informative documentation to help understand how to scope a product, and we recommend to policymakers how they can make determination of what to incdlue in scope.
<HaTheo9> +1 Giacomo, it seems like a compliance issue not a conformance issue.
<Jennie_Delisi> +1 to Giacomo. Example: social media professional creates accessible post, not the site.
<stevef> the building accessibility analogy doesn't stack up: lots of buildings have accessible paths to access areas that also have an inaccessible paths
giacomo-petri: In my opinion we should allow for defining their own conformance, their own scope. Then it would be up for someone else how to judge that statement.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to reply to Patrick's IRC comments
giacomo-petri: For them to determine if the scope Is meaningful, if it is sufficient. We shouldn't restrict the ability to set and define scope.
alastairc: Originally Patrick said if someone fills out the WCAG criteria sections, the supports reach success criteria, that's an implicit claim that they're conforming to, isn't it?
… If you claim to support every provision of WCAG, you are compliant with WCAG. That's what you're supposed to think. Conformance has a more strict meaning than the VPAT is trying to get to.
<kirkwood> Building analogy is fairly valid
<Charles> +1 to vpat handwaiving. and if we change conformance, it will wave differently.
alastairc: If it's partially supports, it's hand waving over conformance. They're intentionally not the same thing as conformance.
… Trying to give the impression they are not useful. It's not the same thing. People can cherry pick in either case. This is a key to whether a conformance statement is misleading.
… if people picked pages that missed a key functionality, that should be obvious. This kind of blocker that people would encounter when actually using those pages.
LoriO: Circling back to something else. Giacomo talked about URLs, versus paths versus processes. I think we should get away from the idea of paths and URLs because they change constantly.
<Zakim> kevin, you wanted to say that anything has the possibility of not being in scope
LoriO: people who have worked on the web knows that. Help gets out of date because no one updated it.
alastairc: I think if someone declared a path or a process and it changed, that's going to be an issue.
Kevin: Buiding on what Giacomo said, and response to Gregg's comments...
… If we are defining the scope as part of conformance and as part of a conformance claim, someone has to be very clear about what the scope of that claim is.
… There's a part of it which does not matter what is and is not out of scope. Ultimately, someone cannot access content, that's scoped and indicated as conforming, they will have recourse.
… Recourse through different channels around regulation. That is not for us to address. There will be a situation where there is content that falls outside of scope of a confomrnae claim.
GreggVan: Nothing prevents anyone from claiming any part of a site of meeting a single element of conforming to WCAG requirements.
… trying to figure out the purpose of when we say "it conforms to WCAG" if it's just a piece.
<kevin> -1 we are not defining rights of access only a standard as to how to measure accessibility
GreggVan: What's the purpose of saying path versus whole page? If the answer is that I don't have to worthy about the rest of the page, there's no reason
… What's the reason for having a path? You cannot make everything on the page accessible.
… The question comes back to Why are we deciding that people with disabilities don't have access to the rest of the information on the page?
… The problem is the process not the objective. If there's not exceptions and there's problems, then the process only requires these parts.
… but as soon as somebody has a problem with the other material/aspects that weren't part of the process, you're going to find that there will be a lot of different definitions.
<Finnberry> WCAG 3 defines two ways to scope content: pages/views and processes.
Matt_King: Trying to answer the question that Gregg just asked. If it was convenient that you did ask that question right then, so what is the purpose?
… I don't think the purpose of a conformance claim is to ensure that everything that a person needs to do a thing is included in the scope of the claim.
… The purpose of scoping the claim is not to include things that ensure the scope is comprehensive.
… The purpose of scoping the claim is just to draw lines around the statement.
… As a person with a disability, I want those lines drawn very clearly so I can know what you're claiming is conformant, and thus what you're claiming is not conformant, or where you're not conforming.
<Zakim> giacomo-petri, you wanted to provide 2 examples: iframes + focused areas of pages because of the purpose of the page
Matt_King: If it turns out that I only get 10% of a process/product as conformant, I want to know what 90% of the process is out of reach.
<HaTheo9> +1 to Matt. Conformance claims, as I’ve observed them, are meant to demonstrate that efforts have been made to adhere to standards and ensure a product is accessibility. If I were to own a large, dynamic, single-page application(which I have), it would be nearly impossible to make a claim of conformance due to the constant experimentation and
<HaTheo9> share what I have tested.
Matt_King: The conformance claim needs to be clear. We need to enable anybody to claim any specific thing as conformant, and by doing that, you can also say what specific things are not conformant.
<stevef> +1 to giacomo-petri
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on why people might want to define paths but not miss content and to say that we should make it compatible with disability regs/law
giacomo-petri: Wanted to mention the reason we are scoping components rather than pages because it allows for excluding third party components embedded in a page.
alastairc: Chair hat off. Greg asked why people might want to define paths, and suggested it was because people want to miss bits out.
… Defining paths is a way of making it clearer which functionality works better or what doesn't work. It's more granular.
… The path can be more clearly associated with a function a user can do. Clarity would be a main reason for wanting to do that. It could have guardrails on it.
… If you include a path, every bit of content on a page in that path has to also be in a path somewhere.
<Matt_King> Proposed Resolution: WCAG 3 should enable conformance claims to be scoped using any clearly definable part of a product.
alastairc: Scoping mechanism bottom up allows you to cherry pick, and it does allow for you to miss things.
… I kind of agree with Gergg and Kevin in different ways, but I think it's more of a compliance thing as if people don't include content in a conformance claim, and if that causes an issue, it becomes a legal thing.
<Rachael> +1 to Laura's point
LauraM: Back to what Kevin said, it's a standard as to how to measure accessibility. I'm wondering if we're conflating conformance to standards with an accessible output, right?
… It goes back to if someone can accomplish a task. There's difference between accessibility testing and conformance testing. Maybe isolate what it is that we're trying to accomplish.
GreggVan: First, The definition of a web page would include everything on a page because it says everything needed to render the page that you draw down.
… Second, the only reason for path is that it is a consequence. Whenever we're doing these things, you have to watch out for the unintended consequences.
… There's such things that are done with good intention that then causes huge problems.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say given that so few things are 100%, wouldn't a more granular / transparent a claim is, the easier it is to make use of that claim.
GreggVan: If you said for every time you list a path, and you name everything that was not accessible. If you didn't say that all of those other paths had to conform, and they would need to also be claimed.
… Why are we going through this elaborate paths kind of thing? I see a huge purpose for it in progress toward conformance.
<Zakim> Heather, you wanted to say permissions on a page may cause 'untested' components for a conformance claim.
Heather: I think when it comes to paths or pages, I don’t think there’s any one answer
… even with pages, people that want an all inclusive thing must consider permissions, where the content might vary per user
… just another factor in considering pages versus paths
<Matt_King> Proposed Resolution: WCAG 3 should enable conformance claims to be scoped using any clearly definable part of a product.
Heather: For pages, there can be hidden areas with permissions.
Matt_King: I don't think we need to modify the definition of a path, I don't think we should allow for conformance claims for pages. It almost sounds to me like Gregg was arguing that there should only be conformance claims for entire products.
… Like what Heather was saying about pages, and wants to plus one what Giacomo was saying.
… essentially what happens if every page becomes part of some process, therefore every page has to be evaluated. It's really hard to exclude any page on a website.
… We either say it's for the whole product, or we allow for parts of a product. If we go to parts of a product, which I think is a great way to go, because it's helpful to the world, then we should allow for any part.
<kirkwood> a page is a distance i/o server delivery (transaction), therefore has been effective in legal adoption (to keep in mind)
GreggVan: We need to ask if paths make it easier? The answer is absolutely. So we're saying that you can skip half of the provisions and make it easier (for the implementers).
… The next question is does it make it more accessible? This has met our goal, is to try to create a standard that makes things accessible.
… I think the definition of paths is excellent. I think its use in progress toward conformance is excellent.
<Finnberry> Some of the guidelines/requirements refer to a process. If conformance could be at component level, then those requirements couldn't apply... so it would reduce the value of a conformance claim.
GreggVan: It's the reporting that's the problem. Our goal it to make everything accessible to people with disabilities.
<LoriO> AR WE TAKING A 5 MINUTE BREAK
Matt_King: I was saying pages are a part of a product and paths are a part of the product. We must only claim the entire product.
<LoriO> sorry, about the upper case text
GreggVan: It's hard to figure out where a product beings and ends. You can do it in a logical fashion.
<julierawe> The every-10-seconds is very stressful
<Charles> all timers are existential dread
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to ask for scribe change
alastairc: Another approach, (slide 6), is a top down approach. Aligns with how conformance works. Need a means to define the edges of the product and declaring what has been tested.
… Is it misleading to declare a product conformance without testing comprehensively? Other proposals include having levels of pages.
<HaTheo9> I honestly assumed that the purpose of using paths was to assert a claim and be transparent about the tests conducted and define the claim.
GreggVan: You do not need to make any claim. People are not forced to make claims. Testing is not part of WCAG and should not be part of WCAG.
<Jennie_Delisi> * alastairc - is the precursor question how many people (other than on this group) understand the difference between those items in your list?
GreggVan: You always sample. But we should not raise sampling because it would confuse most people.
<alastairc> Jennie_Delisi - I don't think so, it was just that even in this group, I doubt many people actually do WCAG 2 conformance statements. I haven't, but I've done loads of audits and accessibiltiy statements, and few VPATS
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to ask clarifying question
GreggVan: Should not talk specify testing methods.
Rachael: What is the practical purpose of conformance in the constraints just stated? Is conformance an internal requirement that we are not actively using. How is it being used?
<LoriO> I have done many, many, ACRs
<alastairc> LoriO - VPAT based?
giacomo-petri: Who is our conformance intended for? The end user? The author?
<Charles> have not seen a conformance claim since before 2009
<Matt_King> Proposed Resolution:
<Matt_King> WCAG 3 should define conformance as a "definable scope" of product parts meets a "set of conformance requirements".
<Matt_King> A conformance claim should be defined as a conformance report that covers all parts of a product and states which parts conform and which parts do not.
<kirkwood> products i buy (just) do j ‘’… ahem but that is legal talking ;)
<HaTheo9> I have never hear someone willing to claim their product is WCAG conformant(have only heard of VPAT/Statements, SLAs). I feel that is risky as products are complex and constantly moving. I think someone said that an LMS had made the claim a few weeks ago(canvas maybe). Does someone have a copy of that claim
<LoriO> alastairc yes, VPAT based
giacomo-petri: Website changes so often.
<alastairc> LoriO - then that isn't a WCAG conformance claim
GreggVan: We are conflating "conformance" with "conformance claim."
<kirkwood> I meant, products I buy must make claim (but that is our legal talking) … no one does though
GreggVan: We do not require that you make a claim.
… You don't have to make a claim but if you do, it can't be a misleading claim.
<Matt_King> Proposed Resolution:
<Matt_King> WCAG 3 should define conformance as a "definable scope" of "definable product parts" meets a "set of conformance requirements".
<Matt_King> A conformance claim should be defined as a conformance report that covers all parts of a product and states which parts conform and which parts do not.
<kirkwood> conformance claim is legal language
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to say that what WCAG 2 had in conformance steered other parts of the industry, which is why people try to get lots of things into conformance
alastairc: A conformance claim should or must cover all parts of a product
<stevef> alastairc i was going to talk to the practical aspects of what the consumers of conformance information want, after doing assessments day in day out for 25 years, I cannot recall any customer asking for a WCAG conformance claim per se, but then i became impatient and signed off zoom
alastairc: It's internal to us, a building block that is needed as part of a standard.
GreggVan: +1 if you are going to say what is, you should also say what isn't.
<Matt_King> Proposed Resolution:
<Matt_King> WCAG 3 should define conformance as a "definable scope" of "definable product parts", e.g., pages, views, paths, processes, meets a "set of conformance requirements".
<Matt_King> A conformance claim is a statement about a product that covers all parts of a product and claims which parts conform and which parts do not conform.
GreggVan: No one would make a claim as to what is not accessible because they would instantly be hauled into court saying "you knew these things weren't accessible"
<alastairc> stevef - feel free to talk that through, my question would be: Is it really about "conformance", or about testing results?
GreggVan: process is subjective.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to better understand conformance
Rachael: Conformance as an internal concept vs claiming accessibility as found through testing and claiming conformity.
<Zakim> Charles, you wanted to ask if encouraging claims is a goal
Rachael: Should we have a strict conformance model and then explain the difference and point people to the informative documents.
Charles: Do we as a group and as a standard want to encourage making conformance claims? If we don't want to encourage it why would we include it. Define conformance and leave terminology about a conformance claim to others.
<kirkwood> valid point
<kirkwood> statement is different
alastairc: We shouldn't require claims. Whole sets of organizations have had to publish accessibility statements. You don't tend to get a lot of legal issues because they are all in the same boat.
GreggVan: Do we want to encourage the use of claims. They use VPATs in the US (Supports, does not support). Should we leave it to policy?
<kirkwood> V : Voluntary
GreggVan: lawyers don't sue for conformance, they sue for money.
<Charles> right. the current wcag 2.x language on claims seems to have been part of discouraging making a claim. so encouraging or discouraging seems to be the domain of policy.
GreggVan: what works in Europe and what works in the US is not the same.
<kirkwood> Needs to be a “reasonable” accommodation according in US. we are creating the standards to make the accessibility accommodation reasonable
Matt_King: I reworded the proposal but believe we should have an option a and option b. Option A conformance claim in normative materials, Option B Nothing about claims in the normative materials.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to propose another option
<kirkwood> it should just be “conformance to guidelines”
alastairc: Chair hat off. We need a layered approach. Fairly simple conformance model (not completely different to WCAG2) where we can lay things out for different audiences in an informative document.
<Charles> Matt_King option b is really my point. if we do not intend to encourage claims but only recommend the content of one, then it is all policy.
<Rachael> +1 to giacomo's question, even if we keep the section simple, we need a unit of conformance
<Charles> +1 to giacomo-petri we cannot lose the scope conversation in the claim conversation
giacomo-petri: We started with claim scoping and ended up with not talking about conformance claims in our material. The scoping bit is about policy makers. There are reasons for authors to conform with specific portions of products.
<Zakim> alastairc, you wanted to comment on bottom-up vs top-down
alastairc: Conformance would be using the conformance units and you define what goes into that conformance. Bottom up approach.
<Zakim> Rachael, you wanted to suggesting several scopes and mapping requirements to the scope types
Rachael: For each scope that we allow, we have to actually clarify with requirements and assertions, provisions would apply.
… All components within a product must be on a path.
<Matt_King> Proposed Resolution option A:
<Matt_King> 1. WCAG 3 should define conformance as a "definable scope" of "definable product parts", e.g., pages, views, paths, processes, meets a "set of conformance requirements".
<Matt_King> 2. A conformance claim is a statement about a product that covers all parts of a product and claims which parts conform and which parts do not conform.
<Matt_King> Proposed Resolution Option B:
<Matt_King> 1. WCAG 3 should strictly define conformance as a "definable scope" of "definable product parts", e.g., pages, views, paths, processes, meets a "set of conformance requirements".
<Matt_King> 2. The conformance model should not make any reference to claims.
<Matt_King> 3. Informative testing and reporting documents should specify what makes conformance reports about a product meaningful and easy to understand.
<Matt_King> 4. Policy guidance should help regulators understand what type of reporting to require.
Matt_King: We need to be able to define conformance.
<Rachael> The updated paths definition is at https://
LauraM: do you mean defining *the scope* of conformance?
… because all the SCs are defining conformance
Matt_King: no, in section 5 of WCAG 2, we say “a page conforms with WCAG if it meets the following requirements” and then a list of requirements
… the first one being it meets all of A, then AA...
… we define “conformance” in the conformance model
… and right now it’s just for a page in WCAG 2
… in WCAG 3’s proposal, there’s now also “view”
… we don’t really need to limit this list as long as people find it useful
<alastairc> 1. WCAG 3 should define conformance as a "definable scope", e.g., pages, views, paths, processes that meet a "set of conformance requirements".
<alastairc> 2. We will check what guardrails might be needed when people use paths or components before including.
<alastairc> 3. Informative testing and reporting documents should build on conformance to recommend a reporting methodology so reports are meaningful and easy to understand.
<alastairc> 4. Policy guidance should help regulators understand what type of reporting to require.
alastairc: I would slightly adjust the resolution to not talk about product as much.
<Rachael> +1 to Kevin
kevin: There is a lot to process and wordsmith. Is it worth chairs taking it offline to come up with a suitable proposal?
<GreggVan> A conformance claim is not required in order to conform to this standard.
<GreggVan> One can scope their conformance to any product, site or subsite defined by URLs. If scoping is for less than a full product, site or subsite the scope must clearly state what is covered and not covered by the scope. (and what is not cannot be just “everything not in scope”). The scope cannot be less than the evaluation unit for requirements.
<GreggVan> It is understood that many products or sites will not fully conform to all requirements for a level of conformance. A separate informative “Progress Toward Conformance” measure to allow comparison of products to see which are closer to conformance and to assist in tracking progress toward conformance.
<kirkwood> Conformance to WCAG 2.1 AA means to meet or exceed all relevant Success Criteria as defined by W3C WCAG Working Group
<Zakim> GreggVan, you wanted to suggest The conformance section just talks about what is required to conform (i.e. meet all requirements for a specified level of conformance.
<Charles> to the point kevin made on the size of this, could we make a much smaller resolution first? like: guidance on claims should be in the policy guidance.
<kevin> Thanks Charles... will keep that in mind
alastairc: Not going to get a resolution on this today.
giacomo-petri: To me it is impossible to clearly state what is not covered by the scope. Many of the requirements are focused on content. You can not say what is not covered.
GreggVan: All of the arguments for what can't be claimed apply to what can be covered.
… I don't see how it is any less definable than what's in scope.
<alastairc> Straw poll: I support continuing to explore a more limited conformance section with defined scopes that also points to informative documents +1, -1, 0
<Matt_King> +1
<bbailey> +1
<HaTheo9> +1
<Adam> +1
<giacomo-petri> +1
<Heather> +1
<Rachael> +1
0
<GreggVan> +1
<PhilDay> +1
<ShawnT> +1
<jkatherman> +1
<Finnberry> +1
<Detlev> +1
<Makoto_U> +1
<Charles> +1
<LoriO> +1
<julierawe> +1
<kirkwood> +1
<Laura_Carlson> +1
giacomo-petri: That's why we use a defined scope. (As per Gregg's comment). It's a policymaker's responsibility to define what is sufficient scoping.
… I have not seen a product that is fully conformant with WCAG. It's not possible not to make mistakes.
<GreggVan> poll sounds good but what is "More limited" is not clear. What does that mean? more limited in what way and more limited than what. but yes sounds like good direction with that caveat
<kirkwood> that’s fine, we are creating the measuring stick.
<kirkwood> use the wayback machine and you can find a bunch!