Re: Question on Checkpoint 7.1

Jon Gunderson wrote:
> 
> 7.1 Use all applicable operating system and accessibility standards and
> conventions (Priority 1 for standards and conventions which are essential
> to accessibility, Priority 2 for those that are important to accessibility,
> Priority 3 for those that are beneficial to accessibility).
> 
> How does a developer know what are the priority 1, priority 2 and priority
> 3 standards and conventions for satisfying this checkpoint?
> 
> I looked at the technique, but it just gave a list of references to design
> guidelines.
> Do the design guidelines define the priority 1, 2 and 3 standards and
> conventions?

I think this is a real issue that the AU Guidelines needs to address. 
Here are a couple of options:

1) This is a "reasonable person" type checkpoint and it is up to
   developers to make reasonable choices. Required action: Just
   ensure that this is clear in the Guidelines.

2) Even reasonable people require guidelines, so add some
   scope to the checkpoint. For instance:
       a) Apply variable priorities (as shown above) for 
          standards and conventions that prioritize requirements.
       b) For other standards and conventions, this checkpoint is
          Priority 1.

3) Drop the variable priorities altogether.

4) Drop the checkpoint.

I propose option 2.

 - Ian


-- 
Ian Jacobs (jacobs@w3.org)   http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs
Tel/Fax:                     +1 212 684-1814
Cell:                        +1 917 450-8783

Received on Tuesday, 21 September 1999 14:16:35 UTC