W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > April to June 2004

Re: Level definition

From: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 11:10:14 -0400
Message-ID: <00bc01c423c4$ec482610$9c01a8c0@deque.local>
To: <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
1. So far, the main distinguishing feature between level 1 and 2 success criteria as stated in current draft of WCAG 2.0 is that level 1 does not constrain author's presentation style. The definition of level 1 and level 2 (in the draft doc) does not indicate that conforming to level 1     will ensure a basic  (or minimum) level of accessibility and level 2 will enhance it. 
Now the proposed definition is introducing this distinction.
  
Therefore  I suppose in all discussions that lead to the release of  the draft, the categorization of checkpoints  into level 1 and 2 was based on whether presentation style is constrained or not. Applicability to Web resources and testability is common to levels 1 and 2.
Where the author is not particularly   concerned about "freedom of presentation" as long as all content is being coherently conveyed,  will pursuing a level 2 criteria provide basic accessibility? Do we need to evaluate categorization of checkpoints again ?
2. If level 1 is interpreted as providing  basic accessibility and level 2 as enhancing it, then  checkpoints that do not have level 1 criteria automatically can be  treated as lower in priority, right?
Sailesh Panchang
Senior Accessibility Engineer 
Deque Systems,11180  Sunrise Valley Drive, 
4th Floor, Reston VA 20191
Tel: 703-225-0380 Extension 105 
E-mail: sailesh.panchang@deque.com
Fax: 703-225-0387
* Look up <http://www.deque.com> *



----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Gregg Vanderheiden 
  To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org 
  Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 5:45 PM
  Subject: LEvel definition


  1- There was a lot of good discussion today.  The following is my best capture of ideas from the meeting.  It is based primarily off of John's posting with rework to try to capture peoples comments as we went along.  



  This is not a consensus doc but just one that is close than what we had before. 



  Feel free to comment on or create additional versions like this or different.  We will pick up and see if we can come up with something we can use for the time being as we move forward to our next task


  Gregg





  ----------------



  All Levels



  Are testable.   Some success criteria are machine-testable. Others require human judgment. Success criteria that require human testing are capable of yielding consistent results among multiple testers.



  Level 1 success criteria



  1.    Do not set limits on content or presentation;



  2.    Achieve a minimum level of accessibility through markup,

  scripting, or other technologies that interact with user agents,

  including assistive technologies;



  3.    The working group felt could be reasonably be applied to all Web resources;





  Level 2 success criteria



  1.    Build on Level 1;



  2.   Increase accessibility both though additional facilitation of user agent based accessibility and through content and/or presentation that provides direct accessibility without requiring intervention by user agents or assistive technology;     



  3.    The working group felt could be reasonably be applied to all Web resources;





  Level 3 success criteria



  1.          Go beyond Level 1 and 2 to increase direct and user agent enhanced accessibility
Received on Friday, 16 April 2004 10:58:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:47:29 GMT