W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2003

RE: Paragraph on rational for abandoning the "Priority" system

From: Gregg Vanderheiden <gv@trace.wisc.edu>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 13:59:20 -0600
To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Message-id: <00a401c39f20$4ef38d60$ae17a8c0@USD320002X>
 

Thanks much David.   Looks good enough that I think we should propose using
this instead of what we have for this section of doc.  

I would suggest the following changes though before we do

1)  Change the title "TECHNIQUES"   to 'TECHNOLOGY SPECIFIC GUIDELINES' 

 

2) DELETE the phrase  " the degree to which they prescribe the default
presentation or expression of content. The three levels are determined as
follows." 

Because this is inaccurate.  It is just part of the reason.   Suggest it be
changed to 

 a number of factors as outlined below.

 

3) that the following be ADDED to LEVEL 3 Criteria. 

2. are testable (machine or reliably human)

 

What do you others think?


Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of David MacDonald
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 11:08 PM
To: gv@trace.wisc.edu; 'Ben Caldwell'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: 'Wendy A Chisholm'
Subject: RE: Paragraph on rational for abandoning the "Priority" system

 

Hi Gregg

I could finish the insert with the "prescribe" word because it is more
accurate and then put the conformance criterion directly after this. To make
this happen I had to juggle the paragraphs a bit. I think this may be a bit
clearer? I've added a heading "Migration" and put the "priority" discussion
as a sub heading of migration.  This "migration" heading is just a thought.
The section could have the old heading of  "Priorities and Techniques".


Migration from WCAG 1.0 to 2.0


This Working Draft of WCAG 2.0 is a follow-on and evolution of WCAG 1.0 and
reflects feedback received since the publication of WCAG 1.0 in May 1999.
The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group is working carefully
to enable organizations and individuals that are currently using WCAG 1.0
(which remains stable and referenceable at this time) to ensure that they
will eventually be able to make a smooth transition to WCAG 2.0. To
understand how this eventual transition would be facilitated, please refer
to the (draft) Mapping Between WCAG
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/10/27-mapping.html>  1.0 and the WCAG 2.0
Working Draft for more detail on current correspondences. Although the same
approaches to accessibility are followed in 1.0 and 2.0, the organization
and structure have been improved significantly. The principles have also
been worded to make it easier to understand their application across the
wide range of existing and emerging technologies.

Techniques 

The main WCAG 2.0 Working Draft document does not include
technology-specific implementation requirements or techniques, but it does
include links to technology-specific requirements as well as
technology-specific examples and techniques. 

Priorities 

One significant change is that this WCAG 2.0 Working Draft does not assign
priorities to guidelines, as did WCAG 1.0. Instead, guidelines include three
levels of success criteria. [insert starts here].  The reason for this is
that each success criteria, regardless of priority category that it would
fall into, could make the critical difference between accessibility and
inaccessibility for some group of users.  Given this, it is impossible to
make some checkpoints more important than others without implying that some
users are more important than others.  Thus, the guidelines have been
reorganized based upon [fixed end of insert] the degree to which they
prescribe the default presentation or expression of content.  The three
levels are determined as follows. [end fixed]

Conformance 

Guidelines are divided into three categories of success criterion.

*         Level 1 Success criterion: 

1.      do not specify how information is presented

2.      are reasonably applicable to all websites

3.      are testable (machine or reliably human)

*         Level 2 Success criterion: 

1.      may require an author to present content in particular ways

2.      are reasonably applicable to all websites

3.      are testable (machine or reliably human)

*         Level 3 Success criterion: 

1.      are additional criteria that go beyond Level 1 and 2 that may be
applied to make sites accessible to more people with all or particular types
of disability

 [end of insert] 

 

=========================

 Access Empowers People...

       ...Barriers Disable Them

          <http://www.eramp.com/> www.eramp.com

 

  _____  

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
Sent: October 29, 2003 6:42 PM
To: 'David MacDonald'; 'Ben Caldwell'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: 'Wendy A Chisholm'

 

Good start. The first part of insert is right on the money.  However, the
levels do not reflect the amount of change.

They are a mixture.   The mixture is in the latest draft.

I would go with your start. Then just say "the three levels are determined
as follows" 

 

Or something like that.

 

Thanks David.

 

 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of David MacDonald
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 3:28 PM
To: 'Ben Caldwell'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: 'Wendy A Chisholm'
Subject: Paragraph on rational for abandoning the "Priority" system

 

I was tasked with introducing a paragraph that gave the rational for our
shift away from the 1.0 "Priority" system. I've tried to put it into lay
persons terms so that most people, including those whose first language is
not English, can understand it. I suggest the explanation be added to the
section of the Guidelines called "Priorities and Techniques".  Here is how
the whole section would read with the inserted paragraph

Priorities and Techniques

This WCAG 2.0 Working Draft does not assign priorities to guidelines, as did
WCAG 1.0. Instead, guidelines include three levels of success criteria.

The main WCAG 2.0 Working Draft document does not include
technology-specific implementation requirements or techniques, but it does
include links to technology-specific requirements as well as
technology-specific examples and techniques.

This Working Draft of WCAG 2.0 is a follow-on and evolution of WCAG 1.0 and
reflects feedback received since the publication of WCAG 1.0 in May 1999.
Although the same approaches to accessibility are followed in 1.0 and 2.0,
the organization and structure have been improved significantly.[insert
starts here] One significant change is that the 2.0 version of the
guidelines are not divided up according to "Priority".  The reason for this
is that each success criteria, regardless of priority category that it would
fall into, could make the critical difference between accessibility and
inaccessibility for some group of users.  Given this, it is impossible to
make some checkpoints more important than others without implying that some
users are more important than others.  Thus, the guidelines have been
reorganized based upon the degree to which a checkpoint may require an
author to adjust the presentation or expression of content.    [end of
insert]

In addition, the principles have been worded to make it easier to understand
their application across the wide range of existing and emerging
technologies.

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group is working carefully
to enable organizations and individuals that are currently using WCAG 1.0
(which remains stable and referenceable at this time) to ensure that they
will eventually be able to make a smooth transition to WCAG 2.0. To
understand how this eventual transition would be facilitated, please refer
to the (draft) Mapping Between WCAG
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/10/27-mapping.html>  1.0 and the WCAG 2.0
Working Draft for more detail on current correspondences.

-----------

 Cheers

David MacDonald

 =========================

 Access Empowers People...

       ...Barriers Disable Them

          <http://www.eramp.com/> www.eramp.com

 

  _____  

From: Gregg Vanderheiden [mailto:gv@trace.wisc.edu] 
Sent: October 29, 2003 6:42 PM
To: 'David MacDonald'; 'Ben Caldwell'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: 'Wendy A Chisholm'

 

Good start. The first part of insert is right on the money.  However, the
levels do not reflect the amount of change.

They are a mixture.   The mixture is in the latest draft.

I would go with your start. Then just say "the three levels are determined
as follows" 

 

Or something like that.

 

Thanks David.

 

 
Gregg

 -- ------------------------------ 
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D. 
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center 
University of Wisconsin-Madison 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of David MacDonald
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 3:28 PM
To: 'Ben Caldwell'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: 'Wendy A Chisholm'
Subject: Paragraph on rational for abandoning the "Priority" system

 

I was tasked with introducing a paragraph that gave the rational for our
shift away from the 1.0 "Priority" system. I've tried to put it into lay
persons terms so that most people, including those whose first language is
not English, can understand it. I suggest the explanation be added to the
section of the Guidelines called "Priorities and Techniques".  Here is how
the whole section would read with the inserted paragraph

Priorities and Techniques

This WCAG 2.0 Working Draft does not assign priorities to guidelines, as did
WCAG 1.0. Instead, guidelines include three levels of success criteria.

The main WCAG 2.0 Working Draft document does not include
technology-specific implementation requirements or techniques, but it does
include links to technology-specific requirements as well as
technology-specific examples and techniques.

This Working Draft of WCAG 2.0 is a follow-on and evolution of WCAG 1.0 and
reflects feedback received since the publication of WCAG 1.0 in May 1999.
Although the same approaches to accessibility are followed in 1.0 and 2.0,
the organization and structure have been improved significantly.[insert
starts here] One significant change is that the 2.0 version of the
guidelines are not divided up according to "Priority".  The reason for this
is that each success criteria, regardless of priority category that it would
fall into, could make the critical difference between accessibility and
inaccessibility for some group of users.  Given this, it is impossible to
make some checkpoints more important than others without implying that some
users are more important than others.  Thus, the guidelines have been
reorganized based upon the degree to which a checkpoint may require an
author to adjust the presentation or expression of content.    [end of
insert]

In addition, the principles have been worded to make it easier to understand
their application across the wide range of existing and emerging
technologies.

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group is working carefully
to enable organizations and individuals that are currently using WCAG 1.0
(which remains stable and referenceable at this time) to ensure that they
will eventually be able to make a smooth transition to WCAG 2.0. To
understand how this eventual transition would be facilitated, please refer
to the (draft) Mapping Between WCAG 1.0
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/10/27-mapping.html>  and the WCAG 2.0 Working
Draft for more detail on current correspondences.

-----------

 Cheers

David MacDonald

 =========================

 Access Empowers People...

       ...Barriers Disable Them

          <http://www.eramp.com/> www.eramp.com

 
Received on Thursday, 30 October 2003 14:59:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:26 GMT