W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > July to September 2002

Re: Impact on ATAG Wombat of Changes to WCAG's Priority Scheme

From: Liddy Nevile <Liddy.Nevile@motile.net>
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 21:46:10 +1000
Message-Id: <a05100319b9a2377989cd@[]>
To: W3C WAI-AU <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>

the 7.2 change seems OK to me but I found it hard to read your new 
'Relative Priority' para...
I suggest modifying it as follows:

>[Relative Priority]
>When the checkpoint requires implementation of some
>functionality (i.e. generating, checking, repairing, etc.) for which
>some or all of the checkpoints in the Web Content Accessibility
>Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 [WCAG20] are relevant, relative priority is 
>assigned. This priority level is
>relative to the priority of requirements of the WCAG 2.0
>checkpoints that are not all equally important for the accessibility of Web
>Content. WCAG 2.0 prioritises requirements by
>establishing three different levels of conformance for each checkpoint:
>minimum (for the most important requirements), level 2 and level 3 (for
>the least important requirements). ATAG Wombat Relative
>Priority checkpoints inherit their priorities as follows:
>Relative Priority - Level "A": The checkpoint satisfies relevant WCAG
>2.0 checkpoint requirements to at least the minimum level.
>Relative Priority - Level "Double-A": The checkpoint satisfies relevant
>WCAG 2.0 checkpoint requirements to at least level 2.
>Relative Priority - Level "Triple-A": The checkpoint satisfies relevant
>WCAG 2.0 checkpoint requirements to at least level 3.
>For example:
>ATAG checkpoint 5.1 requires tools to check
>for accessible content as defined by the requirements of WCAG 2.0. 
>5.1 has relative priority. This
>means that if the tool checks for minimum and level 2 requirements
>of several WCAG checkpoints, but only the minimum requirements for the
>rest, the tool would receive Relative Priority - Priority 1 - for ATAG
>checkpoint 5.1.
>Note: The priority level for each checkpoint has been chosen based on
>the assumption that the author is a competent, but not necessarily
>expert, user of the authoring tool, and that the author has little or no
>knowledge of accessibility. For example, the author is not expected to
>have read all of the documentation, but is expected to know how to turn
>to the documentation for assistance.

Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 07:46:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:47 UTC