W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-qa@w3.org > May 2002

RE: Issue Letters of Conformance

From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 18:01:20 -0600
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020523165620.042e2ec0@rockynet.com>
To: "Kirill Gavrylyuk" <kirillg@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-qa@w3.org
At 01:38 PM 5/23/02 -0700, you wrote:
>Hi, Karl,
>the motive was to match the WAI. I remember Ian recommended us to adopt
>this numbering format.

As I recalled, Ian once suggested "A, double-A, triple-A", which is what 
WAI uses. At [1] I found this:

"Here's why we chose "Level Double-A" instead of "Level 2": It wasn't
clear to people that "2" meant "Priority 1 AND 2 requirements are
met." It could be interpreted as "no priority 1 requirements are met,
only those P2 and below (P3).".
I would recommend sticking with A/AA/AAA just because that system
is already familiar to people within W3C.
Is there an important reason for changing nomenclature?"

-Lofton.

p.s.  If we were to decide that there was reason to change, how about: Q, 
double-Q, triple-Q?  WAI uses "double-A" instead of "AA", for the reason 
that its more accessible, I'm told.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Jan/0062.html
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 20:00:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Sunday, 6 December 2009 12:13:59 GMT