Relative checkpoints

Charles wrote:

> Relative priorities to be handled by splitting checkpoints into
> multiple checkpoints each of single priority. This will apply to
> checkpoints 2.2.2, 2.2.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.6.1, 2.6.3, and is
> expected to apply to the new checkpoints referring to accessibility
> of the user interface

some comments.


2.3.1: [Priority 1]
     Prompt the author to provide alternative content (e.g., captions,
     descriptive video).

Isn't this one a P1 no matter what, given that it refers specifically
to a P1 in WCAG (checkpoint 1.1) ?
 

 
2.4.2: [Priority 1]
     Make generation of accessible content a naturally integrated part of
     the authoring process


To the extend that it is "natural" to only integrate a P3 WCAG related
item in a second level dialog, I guess this is not a relative one. Is
that right ?


2.7.1: [Priority 1]
     Integrate accessible authoring practices in all applicable help topics.

I guess by not making this one an R, we're saying Help must cover
every aspect of WCAG, down to all the P3.

In other words, we're saying Help is an enabling aspect of a tool, not 
a promotional aspect (e.g. without Help on how to use abbrv on TH in
table, people can't use it).

Received on Thursday, 20 May 1999 04:24:17 UTC