Re: AUWG Teleconference on October 17, 2005 - TODAY

Hi Roberto.

Thanks for pointing this out.

This terminology was chosen because we did not want to confuse the 
degree to which relative priority checkpoints have been met with the 
other regular priorities.

Remember, meeting a Relative Priority to level 3 isn't exactly the same 
as saying "the tool has met a Priority 3 checkpoint". Instead it is like 
saying that "the tool has met a Priority 1 requirement with respect to 
WCAG priority 1 items, a Priority 2 requirement with respect to WCAG 
priority 2 items, and a Priority 3 requirement with respect to WCAG 
priority 3 items". The level 1,2,3 are shorthand for this.

Cheers,
Jan


Roberto Scano - IWA/HWG wrote:
> Hi,
> One note for 2.1.2 Checkpoint Priorities.
> 
> I think that we should think about uniform the definition.
> 
> Regular Priority:
>  - priority 1, 2, 3
> 
> Relative Priority:
>  - level 1, 2, 3
> 
> We have two different possibility:
> 
> - change the word "Priority" with "Level" (for conformance with WCAG 2.0)
> - change "Relative Priority" with "Relative Level"
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 20 October 2005 15:17:37 UTC