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

Re: use of Priority vs Conformance Levels

From: Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2002 10:17:54 +0900
To: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
Cc: Lynne Rosenthal <lynne.rosenthal@nist.gov>, www-qa@w3.org
Message-ID: <20021002011754.GB13504@w3.mag.keio.ac.jp>

On Fri, Sep 27, 2002, Lofton Henderson wrote:
> But it would be good to understand the why and what of WAI's new approach 
> here, and either confirm or modify our own approach.
> Do you want to pursue #1 below ("why")?

I'm currently having a look at WCAG2 (even though I don't think I'll have
time for a full evaluation wrt SpecGL), I think I'll get in touch with
the WCAG group and discuss this with them.

One interesting thing I have already noticed is the big difference in
the checkpoints between v1 and 2:

Much fewer checkpoints, much more concise, no example whatsoever (all
moved to the examples documents, etc).

One issue raised in this document states:
"In many cases, several WCAG 1.0 checkpoints of varying priority levels
map to a single WCAG 2.0 checkpoint. How should we resolve the
difference? Could this imply that we only prioritize at the
technology-specific level?"

Note that their approach for GL/ET has changed too, they now use three
levels: [ http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WCAG20/#how-to ]

1 - Top layer - Overview of Design Principles, Guidelines, Checkpoints
2 - Technology-specific Checklists
3 - Bottom layer - Technology-specific application information

What I find really interesting is that 2) and 3) are not big documents
including examples and techniques from different sources, but rather
bindings for/to specific technologies. Something worth discussing too?

Olivier Thereaux - W3C
http://www.w3.org/People/olivier | http://yoda.zoy.org
Received on Tuesday, 1 October 2002 21:17:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:40:29 UTC