please review and comment

One proposal raised by Phill that we did not have time to address in
yesterday's meeting was his proposal regarding relative priority and
applicability text. Could everyone review this and comment to the list
before Friday.

Phill wrote:

>From the definitions of priority:
>
> as part of relative priority:
>
>  All authoring tools should support all applicable Web Content Guideline
>  checkpoints, but the nature of that support may vary according to the
>  nature of the authoring tool, the expected skill level of the author
using
>  the tool, and the requirements of each WCAG checkpoint. In some cases
>  support can be provided automatically, without the need for explicit
author
>  participation, in other cases human judgment is required and support is
>  provided by the tool in the form of prompts and documentation.
>
> and as a general not on priorities:
>
>  In choosing priority levels for checkpoints, the Working Group has
assumed
>  that "the author" is a competent, but not necessarily expert, user of
the
>  authoring tool, and that the author has no prior knowledge of
>  accessibility. For example, the author is not expected to have read all
of
>  the documentation but is expected to know how to turn to the
documentation
>  for assistance.

I would remove much of the paragraph under "relative priority", because it
deals more with "applicability".  "applicability is being covered nicely
with each checkpoint and a general paragraph may add to the confusion.  I
would replace both paragraphs about with this one:

<PJ proposal 1.1[*]>:
In assigning priority levels for checkpoints, "the author" or user of the
tool is assumed to be aware of the language supported, to be a competent,
but not necessarily an expert, user of the tool, and to have only a nominal
knowledge of accessibility. For example, the author is not expected to have
read all of the documentation packaged with the tool, but is expected to
know how to turn to the integrated help and documentation for assistance.

[*]I deleted the first sentence and fixed some grammar from my earlier
post...

Regards,
Phill Jenkins,

Received on Thursday, 9 December 1999 08:04:26 UTC