W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ua@w3.org > October to December 2000

Re: [last call, S2] priorities

From: Ian Jacobs <ij@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 11:23:09 -0500
Message-ID: <3A10156C.92529FE1@w3.org>
To: Al Gilman <asgilman@iamdigex.net>
CC: w3c-wai-ua@w3.org
Al Gilman wrote:
> 
> The definition and use of priorities in this document is not consistent with
> their use in WCAG 1.0.

Nor are the definitions in ATAG 1.0 the same as those in WCAG 1.0
       http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/REC-ATAG10-20000203/#priorities

<QUOTE>
 [Priority 1] If the checkpoint is essential to meeting the goals. 
 [Priority 2] If the checkpoint is important to meeting the goals. 
 [Priority 3] If the checkpoint is beneficial to meeting the goals. 
</QUOTE>
 
> For example, checkpoint 7.3 does not meet WCAG standards for Priority 1,
> but is
> rather in WCAG terms a Priority 2 (document effectively useless, not
> completely
> unusable).

I disagree: if you can't navigate to the active elements, how do you
activate them? That makes it P1.

I believe we used the Priority scheme in a manner largely consistent
with WCAG and that it worked quite well. Sometimes it's possible
to assign a priority on a "logical" basis (i.e., it's clear that
if you don't do this, access will be impossible). At other times,
there is more judgment involve (e.g., checkpoint 10.1 is a P1
for Level Double-A conformance of documentation to WCAG 1.0 because
the WG felt that two levels were necessary and didn't choose
a relative priority scheme. Or, checkpoint 6.1 is a P1 for *all*
accessibility since otherwise they may never be implemented --
the UAWG decided to "take the lead" here).

 - Ian

> This is a thorny issue, as it is not clear that the priorities and conformance
> scheme in WCAG 1.0 is the best possible approach in this area.  But doing
> something that looks the same but isn't the same has problems of its own.
 
> This issue might benefit from some coordination outside the Working Group.
> 
> Al
> --
> Usage in headers.  Comments in response to the last call request for comments
> have been classified S1, S2, or E based on the following rough scale:
> 
> S1: Substantive matter of the first (highest) criticality or importance to the
> mission of the document.  The standard set is ineffective, the document is
> self
> contradictory, etc.
> 
> S2: Substantive matter of a somewhat lower criticality.  The document is hard
> to comprehend, does not align well with related WAI documents, etc.
> 
> E: Editorial matters.  Not regarded as substantive.
> 
> Re:
> 
> User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0
> 
> W3C Working Draft 23 October 2000
> 
>    This version:
> 
> [9]<http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/WD-UAAG10-20001023>http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/W
> D-UAAG10-20001023

-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel:                         +1 831 457-2842
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783
Received on Monday, 13 November 2000 11:23:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 October 2009 06:50:22 GMT