Re: Weighing in on priority definitions

I like Jutta's new wording.

Jutta Treviranus wrote:
> 
> Rather than having two sets of priorities, the phrases relating to section
> 2 could be reworded to address the concerns expressed in last week's
> teleconference:
> Priority one presently reads:
> This checkpoint must be implemented by authoring tools, otherwise one or
> more groups of users with disabilities will find it impossible to access
> some function of the tool, or some content produced by it. Satisfying this
> checkpoint is a basic requirement for some individuals to be able to use
> the authoring tool or its output.
> This could be changed to:
> This checkpoint must be implemented by authoring tools, otherwise one or
> more groups of authors with disabilities will find it impossible to access
> some function of the tool, or authors will create web content using the
> tool that does not conform to the Web Content Guidelines. Satisfying this
> checkpoint is a basic requirement for some individuals to be able to use
> the authoring tool or its output.
> 
> The gradation could be "does not", "unlikely to" and "may not."
> Thus we are not simply replicating the Web Content Guidelines which has
> already prescribed what content is completely inaccessible etc, but we
> would be using priority definitions that relate to what our guidelines are
> trying to do: create tools that persuade or compell authors to create
> accessible content. The gradation should reflect how well that task is
> accomplished.

-- 
Jan Richards
jan.richards@utoronto.ca
ATRC
University of Toronto

Received on Wednesday, 28 April 1999 11:37:41 UTC