Re: WL's Relative Priority comment

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*]