- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charles@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 19:45:25 -0400 (EDT)
- To: WAI AU Guidelines <w3c-wai-au@w3.org>
I would like to raise the proposal again that the priority of 1.1 be phrased in relative terms. There is a question about how to check whether the relevant guidelines have been ofllowed. This is completely orthogonal to the question of priority. One way to check would be to look at the references listed in the techniques document and see which of them are relevant. There is also the fact that not all of the relevant documents explain the priority of each of their requirements, and some of them use a different way of grading the requirements. But the purpose of giving a definition of how priorities are decided is so that correpsondences can be drawn relatively easily. Basically the case goes like this: If we leave it as priority 1, we are either saying it is P1 to do everything in the guidelines, irrespective of how imortant it is, or that it is P1 to read the guidelines, but there we say nothing about whether anything in them should be implemented. Each case seems unacceptable. By making it relative, we allow developers the ability to achieve a low level of AU compliance without having to implement every last suggestion in the XYZ application guidelines. This makes implementation of these guidelines a realistic goal, which is after all important - I would rather have a crop of level-A compliant tools, despite the fact that they are only barely useable, than no accessible tols at all. There is of course a tension in that - if level-A compliance produces a tool which is actually unusable, rather than not easily used, then I fail to see the point. Of course I would far prefer to see developers building for double-A or triple-A compliance, as I am sure the best will. so the proposal is to use the following wording for the priority of 1.1: Priority 1 for standards and conventions which are essential to accessibility, priority 2 for those that are important to accessibility, and priority 3 for those that are beneficial to accessibility. (See the definitions of priority) Charles McCN
Received on Monday, 28 June 1999 19:45:26 UTC