W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > January to March 1999

Groups Most Affected By Violations of Checkpoints

From: eric hansen <ehansen@ets.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:21:20 -0500 (EST)
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <vines.yRv7+esgvqA@cips06.ets.org>
This memo is intended to clarify the meaning of the priority levels that 
the document attaches to the checkpoints. The opinions stated in this 
document are my own.

The priority assigned to each checkpoint is based on severity of the 
adverse affect on access to Web page information by disability groups when 
there is violation of the checkpoint. The guidelines document shows the 
priority rating for each checkpoint but it does not (except perhaps 
inadvertently) tell specifically which group was most severely affected for 
each checkpoint.  (The guidelines document usually provides some 
description of affected groups, but this information is provided at the 
guideline level rather than at the checkpoint level.)

Thus, this document is an attempt to answer the question: "Which group(s) 
is/are most impacted by violation of each checkpoint?" 

For almost all checkpoints, I have indicated (at least) one disability 
group that I think is most impacted. 

As one can see, I have made several suggestions regarding changed priority 
ratings, reworded checkpoints, and deletion of checkpoints. 

This document assumes that the reference set of disabilities is as follows: 
blind, low vision [not including color deficit], color deficit, deaf, hard 
of hearing, cognitive disability, learning disability, physical disability, 
seizure disorder [except photosensitive epilepsy], and photosensitive 
epilepsy.

If one changes the reference set of disabilities, the Priority ratings 
could be different. For example, I believe that treating "deaf-blind" as a 
separate group would result in checkpoint 2.4 changing from Priority 2 to 
Priority 1. (It may be appropriate to do that.) One could also separate out 
dyslexia from learning disability; I don't know that it would result in any 
differences in checkpoint priorities. I have seen some indication that the 
working group may clarify the guideline document's position toward 
nonreaders. If it turns out that the main focus of the document is 
delimited to individuals who are "readers" (as opposed to nonreaders), then 
that may cause changes as well.  

I invite others to correct me if my most-impacted-group selections or my 
reference set of disability groups are incorrect. 

I think that it is important to reach consensus on these issues. Without a 
consensus, the meaning of the priority ratings will be unclear.

The first column (LineNumber) is the line number.
The second column (Checkpoint [or Guideline explanation]) provides the 
number of the checkpoint; the plain number 1 through 16 refers to the 
explanatory material for the Guideline. 
The third column (Group Most Affected) is my guess at the group that was 
most affected.
The fourth column (Notes) provides additional notes. In some case, as you 
will see, I have suggested changes.
Columns are separated by a verticle bar, I.

LineNumber	|	Checkpoint (or Guideline explanation)	|	Group 
Most Affected	|	Notes
1	|	1	|		|	
2	|	1.1	|	blind	|	
3	|	1.2	|	blind	|	
4	|	1.3	|	blind	|	
5	|	1.4	|	blind	|	
6	|	1.5	|	blind	|	
7	|	1.6	|	blind	|	
8	|	2	|		|	
9	|	2.1	|	blind	|	
10	|	2.2	|	blind	|	The wording should be revised to 
say: 2.1 "Provide a long text {EH: or "textual"} equivalent of each graphic,
 script, or applet that conveys important information. [Priority 1]." I 
assume that LONGDESC was not truly intended. I assume, for example, that a 
d-link description would be OK.
11	|	2.3	|	blind	|	The meaning of the term 
"auditory description" will be unclear to many people. How about "2.3 For 
movies, provide an auditory description {EH: Is this the accepted term?}  
(an auditory equivalent of the visual action) that is synchronized with the 
original audio."? The techniques document can explain the mechanism. 
12	|	2.4	|	blind	|	This must become a Priority 1 
checkpoint if deaf-blind is among the reference groups.
13	|	3	|		|	
14	|	3.1	|	deaf	|	
15	|	3.2	|	deaf	|	
16	|	3.3	|	deaf	|	
17	|	4	|		|	
18	|	4.1	|	color deficit	|	
19	|	4.2	|	color deficit	|	
20	|	5	|	Fails to mention affected groups.	|	
21	|	5.1	|	blind	|	
22	|	5.2	|	blind	|	
23	|	5.3	|	blind	|	
24	|	5.4	|	blind	|	Not sure if "blind" is correct.
25	|	5.5	|	blind	|	
26	|	5.6	|	blind	|	
27	|	6	|		|	
28	|	6.1	|	cognitive disability	|	
29	|	6.2	|	cognitive disability	|	
30	|	6.3	|	cognitive disability	|	
31	|	7	|		|	
32	|	7.1	|	blind	|	
33	|	7.2	|	blind	|	
34	|	7.3	|	blind	|	
35	|	7.4	|	blind	|	
36	|	7.5	|	cognitive disability	|	While I think 
that a Priority 3 may be appropriate for the blind population, I think that 
the impact on individuals with cognitive disability deafness or learning 
disabilities warrants a Priority 2.
37	|	7.6	|	blind	|	
38	|	8	|		|	
39	|	8.1	|	blind	|	
40	|	8.2	|	blind	|	
41	|	8.3	|	blind	|	
42	|	8.4	|	blind	|	
43	|	8.5	|	blind	|	
44	|	9	|		|	
45	|	9.1	|	cognitive disability, physical disability, blind,
 photosensitive epilepsy. (?)	|	
46	|	9.2	|	cognitive disability, physical disability, blind,
 photosensitive epilepsy. (?)	|	
47	|	9.3	|	photosensitive epilepsy	|	
48	|	9.4	|	cognitive disability, physical disability, blind,
 photosensitive epilepsy. (?)	|	
49	|	10	|		|	
50	|	10.1	|	blind	|	
51	|	11	|		|	
52	|	11.1	|	blind	|	
53	|	11.2	|	blind	|	
54	|	11.3	|	blind	|	
55	|	11.4	|	blind	|	
56	|	12	|		|	
57	|	12.1	|	blind	|	
58	|	12.2	|	blind	|	I wonder if this is 
sufficiently important to include in the guidelines. This seems disruptive 
to conventions of Web development.
59	|	12.3	|	blind	|	
60	|	12.4	|	blind	|	
61	|	12.5	|	blind	|	
62	|	13	|		|	
63	|	13.1	|	blind	|	I assume that individuals who 
are blind would benefit most, but it is hard to judge.
64	|	13.2	|	blind	|	I assume that that individuals 
who are blind are most severely impacted.
65	|	13.3	|	NA	|	NA, subsumed under 13.4
66	|	13.4	|	blind	|	I assume that that individuals 
who are blind are most severely impacted.
67	|	13.5	|	blind	|	I assume that that individuals 
who are blind are most severely impacted.
68	|	14	|		|	
69	|	14.1	|	blind	|	
70	|	14.2	|	cognitive disability	|	
71	|	14.3	|	blind or cognitive disability	|	
72	|	14.4	|	blind	|	
73	|	14.5	|	blind or cognitive disability (?)	|	
74	|	15	|		|	
75	|	15.1	|	cognitive disability	|	
76	|	15.2	|	cognitive disability	|	
77	|	15.3	|	cognitive disability	|	Should be 
Priority 2 instead of Priority 3.
78	|	15.4	|	cognitive disability	|	Should be 
Priority 2 instead of Priority 3. (??)
79	|	15.5	|	cognitive disability	|	Should be 
Priority 2 instead of Priority 3. (??)
80	|	15.6	|	cognitive disability	|	Should be 
Priority 2 instead of Priority 3. (??)
81	|	15.7	|	cognitive disability	|	Wouldn't it make 
more sense to first require the presence of a site search capability 
(Priority 2) rather than requiring "different types of searches [Priority 
3]"?
82	|	15.8	|	cognitive disability	|	Some this 
checkpoint language appears in the Techniques section on checkpoint 16.1. 
Checkpoint 16.1 is Priority 1. Is checkpoint 15.8 actually needed?
83	|	15.9	|	???	|	Is this a disability access issue 
at all? I am inclined to remove this checkpoint from the document.
84	|	15.10	|	blind	|	
85	|	16	|		|	
86	|	16.1	|	cognitive disability	|	Use slightly 
revised language per suggestion of last week.
87	|	16.2	|	cognitive disability	|	Use revised 
language and priority rating [Priority 2] per suggestion of last week.
88	|	16.3	|	cognitive disability	|	Should be 
Priority 2 instead of Priority 3.

=============================
Eric G. Hansen, Ph.D.
Development Scientist
Educational Testing Service
ETS 12-R
Rosedale Road
Princeton, NJ 08541
(W) 609-734-5615
(Fax) 609-734-1090
E-mail: ehansen@ets.org 
Received on Tuesday, 16 March 1999 17:43:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:46:59 GMT