W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-comments-wcag20@w3.org > May 2006

WCAG 2.0 Comment Submission

From: WCAG 2.0 Comment Form <nobody@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2006 04:23:26 +0000 (UTC)
To: public-comments-wcag20@w3.org
Message-Id: <20060531042326.38384DAF30@w3c4-bis.w3.org>


Name: Lynn Alford
Email: imla@jcu.edu.au
Affiliation: James Cook University
Document: W2
Item Number: Conformance levels and the baseline
Part of Item: 
Comment Type: QU
Comment (Including rationale for any proposed change):
Given that the conformance document states \"The success criteria for each guideline are organized into three (3) levels.

  Level 1 success criteria:  Achieve a minimum level of accessibility.

  Level 2 success criteria:  Achieve an enhanced level of accessibility.

  Level 3 success criteria:  Achieve additional accessibility enhancements\"



Then is the following statement true as well?  \"This method of grouping success criteria differs in important ways from the approach taken in WCAG 1.0. Each checkpoint in WCAG 1.0 was assigned a \"priority\" according to its impact on accessibility. Thus, Priority 3 checkpoints appeared to be less important than Priority 1 checkpoints. The WCAG Working Group believes that all success criteria of WCAG 2.0 are essential for some people. Thus, the system of checkpoints and priorities used in WCAG 1.0 has been replaced by success criteria under Levels 1, 2, and 3 as described above.\"



The fact that level 1 is described as \'minimum level of accessibility\', level 2 as \'enhanced level of accessibility\' and level 3 as \'additional\' makes the levels feel very much the same as priorities in WCAG 1.  Is this method of grouping truly different?

Proposed Change:
Received on Wednesday, 31 May 2006 04:23:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:11:06 UTC