W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-au@w3.org > July to September 1999

1.2 Checkpoint priorities

From: Jutta Treviranus <jutta.treviranus@utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 1999 15:41:39 -0400
Message-Id: <v04011708b3f1db55cb50@[]>
To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
Cc: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Given the discussion regarding the checkpoint priorities section between
Judy and Charles I propose the following rewording of the section (I have
not addressed the number of goals or the ordering of the goals):

Start revision -

1.2 Checkpoint Priorities

Each checkpoint has a priority level. The priority level reflects the
impact of the checkpoint in meeting the goals of this document. These goals

1. That the authoring tool be accessible
2. That the authoring tool generate accessible content by default
(3. That the authoring tool be user configurable)
4. That the authoring tool encourage the creation of accessible content.

The three priority levels are assigned as follows:

[Priority 1]
If the checkpoint is essential to meeting these goals
[Priority 2]
If the checkpoint is important to meeting these goals, and
[Priority 3]
If the checkpoint is beneficial to meeting these goals.

- End revision

We should probably also explicitly state the goals in the introduction.


  >  Checkpoint priorities, 1p: "There are four goals" -- of what? unclear. Of
  >  this document? Then it's confusing to list it here, as the first item
  >  "checkpoint priorities," unless given more context. Maybe this belongs
  >  somewhere else? As for the actual statements of goals, "The authoring
  >  is accessible" doesn't sound like a goal, but "make the authoring tool
  >  accessible" would, or "provide guidance to make the authoring tool
  >  accessible" or "ensure that the authoring tool is accessible," etc.
  >suggest "The working group has 4 goals for tools which conform to these
  >guidelines:" Placing the goals statement here means that it is easy to
  >them to the priorities. I can't find anywhere else where they seem better in
  >context, and if they are somewhere else then we need to refer back to them,
  >which seems to create discontinuity.

  JB There is a discontinuity with the current flow. If the goals stay there,
  they need more context, for instance a clearer subhead or transition. It
  says "Checkpoint Priorities" and then gives "document goals." You don't
  want the unfamiliar reader, who is basically who you want to reach, to get
  lost anywhere unnecessarily.
Right. Another approach: "The checkpoints are prioritised according to their
importance for an authoring tool to meet 4 goals...", or some clearer way of
saying that.
Received on Tuesday, 31 August 1999 15:39:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:39:43 UTC