W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > January to March 2007

Re: WL's Relative Priority comment

From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:55:16 -0500
Message-ID: <45D09BF4.7060205@utoronto.ca>
To: WAI-AUWG List <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>

Last week I took the following action item:

ACTION: JR to To flesh out a better proposal around option (2) of
Relative Priority replacement message 

Here are the changes that I think would be involved:


(1) "1.3 Relationship to the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 
(WCAG)" section...Remove sentence "For more information on how WCAG acts 
as a benchmark, see "Relative Priority" Checkpoints.".


(2) "Conformance Levels" section...needs to be reworded. e.g.

Level "A":
The authoring tool has satisfied all Priority 1 "regular priority" 
checkpoints and has also satisfied all of the "relative priority" 
checkpoints to at least Level 1.


Level "A":
The authoring tool has satisfied all Priority 1 checkpoints.


(3) Remove ""Relative Priority" Checkpoints" section


(4) Move content in "Relative Priority Checkpoints in Practice:" section 
  into the Benchmark explanation.


(5) In "Components of an ATAG 2.0 Conformance Claim" section, remove 
sentence: "For relative priority checkpoints this means describing how 
the requirements of the content type-specific WCAG benchmark document 
are satisfied."


(6) In the guidelines, break the term:

[Relative Priority]


[Priority 1 for *essential accessibility issues*, Priority 2 for 
*important accessibility issues*, Priority 3 for *beneficial 
accessibility issues*]

for each affected checkpoint:

A.0.1 For the authoring tool user interface, ensure that Web-based 
functionality conforms to WCAG.

B.1.4 Ensure that when the authoring tool automatically generates 
content it conforms to WCAG.

B.1.5 Ensure that all pre-authored content for the authoring tool 
conforms to WCAG.

B.2.1 Prompt and assist the author to create content that conforms to WCAG.

B.2.2 Check for and inform the author of accessibility problems.

B.2.3 Assist authors in repairing accessibility problems.

(7) Write new text explaining how *essential accessibility issues*, 
*important accessibility issues*, and *beneficial accessibility issues* 
map to WCAG 1.0, WCAG 2.0 (or possibly if we decide to go this route to 
other standards, e.g. national standards, company standards etc.)

Received on Monday, 12 February 2007 16:56:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:54 UTC