Re: 1.2 Checkpoint priorities

I find this re-formulation of the goals/priorities section much clearer.
Without commenting on the inclusion of goal #3 or not, I am in agreement
with Jutta's proposal.

- Judy

At 03:41 PM 8/31/99 -0400, Jutta Treviranus wrote:
>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
>are:
>
>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.
>
>Jutta
>
> >JB
>  >  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
>under
>  >  "checkpoint priorities," unless given more context. Maybe this belongs
>  >  somewhere else? As for the actual statements of goals, "The authoring
>tools
>  >  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.
>  >CMN
>  >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
>relate
>  >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.
>CMN2
>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.
>
----------
Judy Brewer    jbrewer@w3.org    +1.617.258.9741    http://www.w3.org/WAI
Director, Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) International Program Office
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)
MIT/LCS Room NE43-355, 545 Technology Square, Cambridge, MA,  02139,  USA

Received on Tuesday, 31 August 1999 18:11:48 UTC