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: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:30:06 -0500
Message-ID: <45D211BE.2030004@utoronto.ca>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org

On yesterday's call I took an action item to follow up on TB's 
suggestion that we ensure our wording is harmonized with that of WCAG 2.0...

Checking WCAG 2.0 I found the following explanation of levels:

Level 1 success criteria:
  - Achieve a minimum level of accessibility.
  - Can reasonably be applied to all Web content.
Level 2 success criteria:
  - Achieve an enhanced level of accessibility.
  - Can reasonably be applied to all Web content.
Level 3 success criteria:
  - Achieve additional accessibility enhancements.
  - Can not necessarily be applied to all Web content.

I therefore suggest that we use the terms "minimum level of 
accessibility", "enhanced level of accessibility" and "additional 
accessibility enhancements" instead of the terms I previously proposed.

So the new wording for each checkpoint that is currently [Relative 
Priority] would be:

[Priority 1 for a *minimum level of accessibility*, Priority 2 for an 
*enhanced level of accessibility*, Priority 3 for *additional 
accessibility enhancements*]


Cheers,
Jan


Jan Richards wrote:

 > (6) In the guidelines, break the term:
 >
 > [Relative Priority]
 >
 > into
 >
 > [Priority 1 for *essential accessibility issues*, Priority 2 for
 > *important accessibility issues*, Priority 3 for *beneficial
 > accessibility issues*]
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 19:30:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 22 September 2008 15:53:06 GMT