- From: eric hansen <ehansen@ets.org>
- Date: Tue, 25 May 1999 11:58:38 -0400 (EDT)
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
On Fri, 21 May 1999 18:14:48 -0400 (EDT) ("Priorities: Eric's notes"), Charles McCathieNevile wrote: "I have assumed that the discussion of priorities at the meeting and subsequent redefinition has superseded the original comments." However, the material I posted on the definitions of priorities on 19 May: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0242.html was intended as a current proposal rather than as something which was obsoleted by the proceedings of our face-to-face meeting. Part A: Essential Features of the Definitions Features that I consider most important in this proposal are: 1. Separation of the definitions for the two major components of the guidelines: (a) creating accessible content and (b) providing an accessible user interface. This separation seems important because the meanings of the priorities really do differ between these sections. I don't have any particular problem with also stating them in some combined fashion, but for clarity, I think that they must be defined separately. 2. Explicit reference to impact on disability groups. I think that people are agreed that this is the focus of the document. This focus must be reflected in the definition of the priorities. 3. Language that makes clear that impact on disability groups is the criterion for determining the priority level. 4. Explicit discussion of assumptions. Assumptions underlying the ratings should be listed. One may argue that some of this material is too lengthy for inclusion in the WATG document. While we may finally decide that some of that material may belong somewhere else, I believe that if we as a Working Group fail to reach consensus on what the actual assumptions are, then the meaning of the priorities will always remain vague to us and even vaguer to others. For example, do the priority definitions really apply equally to tools that are simple HTML editors and to tools with intuitive (e.g., WYSIWYG editors) interfaces? Another important example, concerns which groups are affected: Do some of the checkpoints just affect some disability groups or do they all affect all disability groups the same. Things that I think could more readily be changed from my proposal include the following: 1. Keywords for the Priority. In my proposal (as well as the WCAG document), the keywords are "must", "should", and "may". I don't thing that we should depart from this unless we reach consensus that we really have a better alternative. (The words "essential", "important", and "beneficial" seem to have become the favorites during my mid-day absence from the face to face meeting on Sunday.) 2. Stretching or Contracting Some Portion of the Scale. Whether it makes sense to stretch or contract the scale depends in part upon answers to questions such as: (a) whether there are checkpoints that truly make it "impossible" to author accessible content or for people with disabilities to use the tool (b) whether we wish to depart from the scale established for WCAG. We could, for example have priority 1 be for checkpoints that make it "very difficult or impossible", priority 2 for checkpoints that make it "difficult", priority 3 for checkpoints that make it "somewhat difficult". 3. Elaborations. Elaborations such as "basic requirement" (priority 1) or "remove significant barriers" (priority 2), "improves access" (priority 3) (see the WCAG document) have both advantages and disadvantages. I am happy to consider inclusion or exclusion of such phrases. My proposal excludes them from the main definition and adds them as an addendum. It might be better to exclude them altogether though I could probably be persuaded otherwise. 4. Numbering, Ordering, and Aggregation. Per recent discussions, I think that it is fine, in principle, to modify the ordering, numbering, and level of aggregation of the checkpoints addressing the two major sections (accessible content vs accessible interface). I do have some concerns about putting the whole section into a single guideline, but am waiting to see what it actually looks like in the next draft. == Part B: Incompleteness The definition breakdown in the 21 May 1999 draft reads as follows: [Priority 1] Essential to meeting those goals [Priority 2] Important to meeting those goals [Priority 3] Beneficial to meeting those goals It is difficult to comment on these without seeing the rest of the definitions. As noted earlier, in my view, the definitions need to refer to different levels of impact on disability groups. Am I correct that these current definitions are not thought to be complete? Without having reference to impact on people with disabilities, there is no objective criterion for the priority levels. Without an objective criterion, I feel that one must more fully specify the rationale for individual priority decisions. I think that we should put the generic portions of the rationale (i.e., the impacts) in the priority definitions. Part C: Assumption Regarding Time-Span Covered One of the issues that one runs into regarding assigning priority levels based on impact ratings is that it seems strange to rate the impact of absence (violation) of a feature is not yet available in any commercial product, e.g., tools for managing alternative content. However I suggest that this problem goes away if we assume that the ratings are based not only upon tools that are now available but also upon tools that we believe will exist over the next several years (let us say, 5 or 10 years). Again, I think that the Working Group needs to make this kind of assumption explicit, even if it doesn't make it into the final document. Under this assumption, it makes sense to say that absence of a certain capability makes it "difficult" (or some other term) for one or more disability groups to access the tool or access the content, even though the feature may never have been implemented. The WATG, in effect, establishes a standard of accessibility that we think will be appropriate for 5 or 10 years, even though the document may need to be updated sooner than that. Part D: Is Priority 3 Fundamentally Different From Priorities 1 and 2? I think that the working group should be very deliberate about deciding whether it wants to use language that implies that priorities 1 and 2 checkpoints address a different class of issues than priority 3 checkpoints. For better or for worse, the WCAG document manifests a discontinuity between priorities 1 and 2 on the one hand and priority 3 on the other. "Must" (priority 1) and "should" (priority 2) are true imperatives; but "may" (priority 3) is different animal because it connotes optionality. It is, in a sense, a non-mandated level of accessibility -- a non-mandated mandate (my oxymoronic phrase). The WAI is advocating that organizations tackle priorities 1 and 2 but is less emphatic about priority 3. For the WATG document, do we see priorities 1 and 2 as things that represent "standard" level of accessibility and priority 3 as something that is "above and beyond" actual necessity but that would nevertheless be highly beneficial for people with disabilities? I have concerns about that because it seems to put priority 3 outside the realm of accessibility and into the realm of "usability." My point is that we ought to make our working assumptions explicit. I strongly suggest documenting them in the working drafts. If they are too lengthy for inclusion in the final document, we can decide later. To fail to make our assumptions explicit is to greatly hinder the establishment of a consensus regarding priority levels. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-au/1999AprJun/0242.html for my current assumptions regarding the priority definitions. ============================= Eric G. Hansen, Ph.D. Development Scientist Educational Testing Service ETS 12-R Rosedale Road Princeton, NJ 08541 (W) 609-734-5615 (Fax) 609-734-1090 E-mail: ehansen@ets.org
Received on Tuesday, 25 May 1999 12:49:25 UTC