Re: Relative Priority note for Wombat 3.1.

I think that extending the required functionality statements could be
problematic. Priority 2 and Priority 3 checkpoints are sometimes
peripheral to the central issue that our relative priority checkpoint is
trying to address, so adding these to the required functionality
statements could greatly extend the length of the statements and dilute
their usefulness. Perhaps someone looking for the minimum requirement
will most likely be aiming for single A anyway.

On the other hand, maybe we do need to lay out, somewhere, what a
product needs to do to be AA and AAA compliant.


Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
> 
> Just to repeat what I sid in the meeting today:
> 
> agree that 9.1 and 13.10 don't need to be here.
> 
> I think 14.2 meand that we do have to change the basic functionalirty note,
> either to point out that it is only relevant to level A or double-A, or
> extend it a bit to add required functionality in the case of tools looking
> for triple-A.
> 
> At the moment I am preferring the latter, but I think I need to think about
> it first.

-- 
Cheers,
Jan

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

Jan Richards
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC)
University of Toronto

jan.richards@utoronto.ca
Tel: (416) 946-7060  Fax: (416) 971-2896

/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

Received on Monday, 23 July 2001 16:20:24 UTC