[contents]
Description of the URIs, or product name, that the claim is being made for, including whether subdomains are included in the claim.
This section is normative.
This section lists requirements for conformance to WCAG 2.0 as well as information about how to make optional conformance claims. It also explains what it means for a Web content technologies to be accessibility-supported, since only accessibility-supported content can conform. [2277]
In order to conform to WCAG 2.0, all of the following conformance requirements must be satisfied for each Web page:
1.) Conformance Level: One of the following conformance levels of conformance must be met. [2220]
Note: Although conformance can only be achieved at the stated levels, authors are encouraged to satisfy and report progress toward meeting success criteria from all levels beyond the achieved level of conformance.
2.) Full pages: Conformance is for full Web page(s) only, and cannot be achieved if part of a Web page is excluded.
3.) Supplemental Information: For the purpose of determining conformance, a conforming alternative to part of a page's content is considered part of the page when the alternative content is obtainable directly from the page.
4.) Accessibility-Supported Technologies Only: Only documented accessibility-supported Web technologies are relied upon to meet success criteria. Any information or functionality that is implemented in technologies that are not accessibility supported must also be available via technologies that are accessibility supported. (Understanding accessibility support) [2276]
5.) Non-Interference: If Web technologies that are not accessibility supported are used on a page, or accessibility-supported technologies are used in a non-conforming way, then they do not block the ability of users to access the rest of the page. The Web page continues to meet the conformance requirements when the (non accessibility-supported) technology is turned on, turned off, or is not supported by a user agent.
6.) Complete processes: If a Web page that is part of a process does not conform at some level, then no conformance is possible at that level for any Web pages in that process.
Example: An online store has a series of pages that are used to select and purchase products. All pages in the series from start to finish (checkout) must conform in order for any page that is part of the sequence to conform.
Note: If pages can not conform (for example, conformance test pages or example pages) they would not be included in the scope of conformance or conformance claim.
For more information, see Understanding Conformance Requirements.
Sometimes, Web pages are created that will later have additional content added to them. For example, an email program, a blog, an article that allows users to add comments to the bottom, or applications supporting user contributed content. Another example would be a page composed of content aggregated from multiple contributors, such as in portals and news sites. Sometimes, the content from the other sources is automatically inserted into the page over time.
In both of these cases, it is not possible to know at the time of original posting what the content of the pages will be. Two options are available:
OR
A "statement of partial conformance" is made. A statement that the page does not conform, but could conform if certain parts were removed can be made. The form of that statement would be, "This page would conform to WCAG 2.0 at level X if the following parts from uncontrolled sources were removed."
The content that is excluded in the statement of partial conformance cannot be content that is under the author's control.
The content that is excluded in the statement of partial conformance would be described in terms that users can understand. (e.g. they can't be described as "all parts that we do not have control of" unless they are clearly marked as such.)
Conformance claims apply to Web pages, and sets of Web pages.
Conformance claims are not required. However, if a conformance claim is made, then the conformance claim must include the following information:
Date of the claim
Guidelines title, version and URI "Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 2.0 at {URI of final document}"
Conformance level satisfied: (Bronze, Silver or Gold)
Description of the product or URIs that the claim is being made for, including whether subdomains are included in the claim.
A list of accessibility-supported technologies that includes all of the technologies relied upon .
Note: When citing technologies that have multiple versions, the version(s) supported must be specified.
In addition to the required components of a conformance claim above, consider providing additional information to assist users. Recommended additional information includes:
A list of success criteria beyond the level of conformance attained that have been met. This information should be provided in a form that consumers can use, preferably machine-readable metadata.
A list of the specific technologies that are "used but not relied upon ."
A list of user agents, including assistive technologies, that were used to test the content.
Information about any additional steps taken that go beyond the success criteria to enhance accessibility.
A machine-readable metadata version of the list of specific technologies that are relied upon.
A machine-readable metadata version of the conformance claim.
Note: Refer to Examples of Conformance Claims in Understanding Conformance for examples.
Note: Definitions that have been modified in this proposal from the latest working draft are highlighted and preceded with two asterisks (**).
DELETE THIS DEFINITION - see conforming alternate version
satisfying all the requirements of a given standard, guideline or specification
Note 1: The alternate version does not need to be matched page for page with the original (e.g. the alternative to a page may consist of multiple pages).Note 2: If multiple language versions are available, then conforming versions are required for each language offered.
Note 3: Alternate versions may be provided to accommodate environments where different sets of Web technologies are accessibility supported. Each version should be as conformant as possible, assuming accessibility support for the technologies it uses.
Note 4: This should not be confused with supplementary information which supports the original page and enhances comprehension.
Note 5: User preferences that yield a conforming version and that meet requirement 4 of 'conforming alternate versions" can be used.
information and sensory experience to be communicated to the user by means of a user agent, including code or markup that defines the content's structure, presentation, and interactions
processes and outcomes achievable through user action
for information purposes and not required for conformance
Note: Content required for conformance is referred to as "normative."
process or technique for achieving a result
Note 1: The mechanism may be explicitly provided in the content, or may be relied on to be provided by either the platform or by user agents, including assistive technologies.
Note 2: The mechanism must meet all success criteria for the conformance level attained.
required for conformance
Note 1: One may conform in a variety of well-defined ways to this document.
Note 2: Content identified as "informative" or "non-normative" is never required for conformance.
series of user actions where each action is required in order to complete an activity
Example 1: Successful use of a series of Web pages on a shopping site requires users to view alternative products, prices and offers, select products, submit an order, provide shipping information and provide payment information.
Example 2: An account registration page requires successful completion of a Turing test before the registration form can be accessed.
determined by software from author-supplied data provided in a way that different user agents, including assistive technologies, can extract and present this information to users in different modalities
Example: Determined in a markup language from elements and attributes that are accessed directly by commonly available assistive technology.
Example: Determined from technology-specific data structures in a non-markup language and exposed to assistive technology via an accessibility API that is supported by commonly available assistive technology.
the content would not conform if that technology is turned off or not supported
the success criterion does not evaluate to 'false' when applied to all of the content on the page
collection of Web pages that share a common purpose and that are created by the same author, group or organization
Note: Different language versions would be considered different sets of Web pages .
additional content that illustrates or clarifies the primary content
mechanism for encoding instructions to be rendered, played or executed by user agents
Note 1: As used in these guidelines "Web Technology" and the word "technology" (when used alone) both refer to Web Content Technologies.
Note 2: Web content technologies may include markup languages, data formats, or programming languages that authors may use alone or in combination to create end-user experiences that range from static Web pages to multimedia presentations to dynamic Web applications.
Example: Some common examples of Web content technologies include HTML, CSS, SVG, PNG, PDF, Flash, and JavaScript.
a non-embedded resource, that is referenced by a URI within the scope of conformance, plus any other resources that are used in the rendering or intended to be rendered together with it [begin add] by a user agent [end add]"
Note: Although any "other resources" would be rendered together with the primary resource, they would not necessarily be rendered simultaneously with each other.
Example 1: When you enter http://shopping.example.com/ in your browser you enter a movie-like interactive shopping environment where you visually move about a store dragging products off of the shelves around you and into a visual shopping cart in front of you. Clicking on a product causes it to be demonstrated with a specification sheet floating alongside.
Example 2: A Web resource including all embedded images and media.
Example 3: A Web mail program built using Asynchronous JavaScript and XML (AJAX). The program lives entirely at http://mail.example.com, but includes an inbox, a contacts area and a calendar. Links or buttons are provided that cause the the inbox, contacts, or calendar to display, but do not change the URL of the page as a whole.
Example 4: A customizable portal site, where users can choose content to display from a set of different content modules.
Editorial Note: As currently worded, the conforming alternate version definition ensures that a mechanism is available to find a conforming version from any nonconforming version. The working group is concerned that it has not identified enough supported mechanisms to meet the needs and constraints of different technologies or the limitations authors may have in their content or server. This definition and the ALTERNATE VERSION CONCEPT are therefore "at risk" in its current form. If there are not sufficient techniques to meet the current language, it would have to change. The two options under consideration if that happens both have disadvantages. The options are:
Fallback option #1: Requiring an accessible link from the nonconforming content, which would block use of some current and future technologies if they do not support WCAG conforming links, or
Fallback option #2: Allowing the requirement to be met by a single page with links to the conforming and non-conforming pages, or other techniques that may provide an option to find the conforming version when browsing, but that would leave the user with no way to find the conforming page after reaching a non-conforming page via search, or a link from a blog, email, article, other page etc.
Further discussion of this topic is available at Alternate Versions Conformance Requirement. The working group seeks suggestions for additional sufficient techniques that would allow us to keep the current language as well as comments, input, and thoughts on the two alternatives should we fail to identify enough.