W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > April to June 1999

Priority Definitions for Sections 2 and 3

From: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Apr 1999 13:57:13 -0700
Message-Id: <>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
It's clear to me that we need to have two different sets of
priority definitions for sections 2 and 3.  They measure
different things and this needs to be reflected.


P1 is "critical"
P2 is "important"
P3 is "recommended"

Proposed definitions:


[Priority 1]

Implementation of this checkpoint is necessary in order to produce
a tool that can used by a naive author (def. below) to create
accessible web pages.

[Priority 2]

The implemention of this checkpoint is important for ensuring the
author's ability to create accessible content.

[Priority 3]

Implementation of this checkpoint is recommended as it allows the
author greater control over accessible web authoring practices.

Definition:  Naive Author

A "naive author" is a user of an authoring tool who may be completely
unfamiliar with accessible web authoring practices, including the
specifics of the authoring language(s) being used.  Naive authors
will often rely entirely on WYSIWYG features of an authoring tool
and have no concept of designing for assistive technology users.
Many authors using the "Save as..." feature of word processors or
other programs will be naive authors as well.

"Promoted" or changed priorities:

2.1.1 ("use applicable W3C specifications") moves up to P1 from P2.

2.4.1 ("ensure that the highest-priority accessible authoring practices
        are the most visible") moves up to P1 from P2.

2.7.2 ("integrate accessible authoring practices into help") moves up
       to P1 from P2

So, in other words, the things we KNOW are important actually get
labeled P1, especially since they clearly are aimed at the naive 
author, who is someone we particularly have to pay attention to.


[Priority 1]

This checkpoint is crucial for the operation of the tool by one or
more groups of users with disabilities; failure to implement this
in the authoring tool results in lost functionality.

[Priority 2]

This checkpoint should be implemented or else one or more groups of
users with disabilities will be unable to efficiently use the authoring
tool; failure to implement this checkpoint results in barriers to
use of the tool's functions.

[Priority 3]

Implementation of this checkpoint is recommended as it increase the
usability of the authoring tool by one or more groups of users with
disabilities; failure to implement this would make the authoring tool
less useful to those users.

I must say that I'm hard pressed to come up with enough variation 
between these definitions to have three priorities, so I don't really
like the definitions for Section Three that I've just written.  Hope-
fully someone else can do a better job with Sec. 3, although I'm
happy with Sec. 2, pending a rewrite from our wordsmiths if 

Kynn Bartlett  <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                   http://www.kynn.com/
Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain Internet      http://www.idyllmtn.com/
Become AWARE of Web Accessibility!                  http://aware.hwg.org/
Next Speaking Engagement:  FedWeb 1999      http://www.kynn.com/+fedweb99
April is Web Accessibility Month!           http://www.kynn.com/+hwgapril
Received on Wednesday, 21 April 1999 17:00:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:42 UTC