Re: Fairly extensive external comments on ATAG 2.0: Comments - Comments on Rel Priority checkpoints [3]

[3]

Some people still don't understand how the Relative Priority items are
calculated.
  "Some are clear, while others could be issues for meeting ATAG
compliance.  For example, can you give a better explanation of how a
specific checkpoint like B.2.2. will apply to tools if we say all tools
must meet all ATAG P1 guidelines while conforming to WCAG 2.0 and not
WCAG 1.0."

---

JR: ATAG requires use of EITHER WCAG 1.0 or 2.0 so perhaps we can reword 
to make this more clear:

EXISTING TEXT FROM 1.5.1 Relationship to "Web Content Accessibility 
Guidelines (WCAG)"

"
ATAG 2.0 depends on WCAG to act as a benchmark for judging the 
accessibility of Web content and Web-based authoring interfaces and also 
to define the terms "Accessible Web Content" and "Accessible Authoring 
Interface".

At the time of publication, version 1.0 of WCAG is a W3C Recommendation 
[WCAG10], and a second version of the guidelines is under development 
[WCAG20]. @@edit when WCAG is rec@@ Importantly, WCAG 2.0 has a 
different Conformance Model than that of WCAG 1.0 (see discussion in the 
conformance section of WCAG 2.0)

Note that within the guidelines section of ATAG 2.0, references are made 
to WCAG without an associated version number. This has been done to 
allow developers to select, and record in the conformance profile, 
whichever version of WCAG is most appropriate for the circumstances of a 
given authoring tool. The Working Group does recommend considering the 
following factors when deciding on which WCAG version to use:
"

SUGGESTED REWORDING:

"
ATAG 2.0 depends on WCAG to act as a benchmark for judging the 
accessibility of Web content and Web-based authoring interfaces and also 
to define the terms "Accessible Web Content" and "Accessible Authoring 
Interface".

It is left up to the evaluator to decide which version of WCAG to use in 
their own *conformance claim* (version 1.0 [WCAG10] or version [WCAG20] 
@@assuming this becomes a rec@@).

In order to enable the evaluator to choose which WCAG version to use in 
the conformance claim, references are made throughout the document to 
WCAG without an associated version number.

The Working Group does recommend considering the following factors when 
deciding on which WCAG version to use:
"

EXISTING TEXT FROM "Relative Priority" Checkpoints

"
2.1.2 Checkpoint Priorities
Each checkpoint has been assigned a priority level that indicates the 
importance of the checkpoint in satisfying the guideline under which the 
checkpoint appears. The priority of a checkpoint determines whether that 
checkpoint must be met in order for an authoring tool to achieve a 
particular conformance level. There are three levels of "regular 
priority" checkpoints as well as a special class of "relative priority" 
checkpoints that rely on WCAG as a benchmark for determining what is 
considered accessible Web content.

"Regular Priority" Checkpoints:

...

"Relative Priority" Checkpoints
The importance of the "relative priority" checkpoints depends on the 
requirements defined by whichever version of WCAG the evaluator has 
defined in the conformance profile. These checkpoints can be met to one 
of three levels:

Level 1
in Part A: Indicates that the WCAG benchmark met by the Web content in 
the authoring interface (if this is applicable) is set at the minimum 
conformance level (either WCAG 1.0 Level "A" or WCAG 2.0 Level "A" (as 
defined in the conformance profile)).
in Part B: Indicates that the WCAG benchmark produced by the tool is set 
at the minimum conformance level (either WCAG 1.0 Level "A" or WCAG 2.0 
Level "A" (as defined in the conformance profile)).
Level 2
in Part A: Indicates that the WCAG benchmark met by the Web content in 
the authoring interface (if this is applicable) is set at the 
intermediate conformance level (either WCAG 1.0 Level "Double-A" or 
"WCAG 2.0 Level AA" (as defined in the conformance profile)).
in Part B: Indicates that the WCAG benchmark produced by the tool is set 
at the intermediate conformance level (either WCAG 1.0 Level "Double-A" 
or "WCAG 2.0 Level AA" (as defined in the conformance profile)).
Level 3
in Part A: Indicates that the WCAG benchmark met by the Web content in 
the authoring interface (if this is applicable) is set at the stringent 
conformance level (either WCAG 1.0 Level "Triple-A" or "WCAG 2.0 Level 
AAA" (as defined in the conformance profile)).
in Part B: Indicates that the WCAG benchmark produced by the tool is set 
at the stringent conformance level (either WCAG 1.0 Level "Triple-A" or 
"WCAG 2.0 Level AAA" (as defined in the conformance profile)).
"

SUGGESTED REWORDING:

2.1.2 Checkpoint Priorities

Each checkpoint has been assigned a priority level that indicates its 
importance and determines whether that checkpoint must be met in order 
for an authoring tool to achieve a particular conformance level. There 
are three levels of "regular priority" checkpoints as well as a special 
class of "relative priority" checkpoints.

"Regular Priority" Checkpoints:

The priority of the "regular priority" checkpoints is pre-set and does 
not depend on the *Content Type-Specific WCAG Benchmark* document. 
*Note: Because Part A and B of the guidelines refer to different areas 
(i.e. the accessibility of the authoring interface versus supporting the 
production of accessible content), the wording of priority levels is 
slightly different for each part*:

...

"Relative Priority" Checkpoints

"Relative Priority" Checkpoints exist in ATAG 2.0 to provide authoring 
tool developers with the flexibility to address Web content 
accessibility issues with higher priorities, as defined by WCAG, before 
lower priority issues. It is left up to the evaluator to decide which 
version of WCAG to use in their own *conformance claim* (version 1.0 
[WCAG10] or version [WCAG20] @@assuming this becomes a rec@@).

These checkpoints can be met to one of three levels, according to level 
of WCAG that has been met in each instance. *Note: Because Part A and B 
of the guidelines refer to different areas (i.e. the accessibility of 
the authoring interface versus supporting the production of accessible 
content), the wording of priority levels is slightly different for each 
part*:

Level 1
in Part A: Indicates that the WCAG benchmark met by the Web content in 
the authoring interface (if this is applicable) is set at the *minimum 
conformance level* (WCAG 2.0 Level "A").
in Part B: Indicates that the WCAG benchmark produced by the tool is set 
at the minimum conformance level (either WCAG 1.0 Level "A" or WCAG 2.0 
Level "A" (as defined in the conformance profile)).
Level 2
in Part A: Indicates that the WCAG benchmark met by the Web content in 
the authoring interface (if this is applicable) is set at the 
intermediate conformance level (either WCAG 1.0 Level "Double-A" or 
"WCAG 2.0 Level AA" (as defined in the conformance profile)).
in Part B: Indicates that the WCAG benchmark produced by the tool is set 
at the intermediate conformance level (either WCAG 1.0 Level "Double-A" 
or "WCAG 2.0 Level AA" (as defined in the conformance profile)).
Level 3
in Part A: Indicates that the WCAG benchmark met by the Web content in 
the authoring interface (if this is applicable) is set at the stringent 
conformance level (either WCAG 1.0 Level "Triple-A" or "WCAG 2.0 Level 
AAA" (as defined in the conformance profile)).
in Part B: Indicates that the WCAG benchmark produced by the tool is set 
at the stringent conformance level (either WCAG 1.0 Level "Triple-A" or 
"WCAG 2.0 Level AAA" (as defined in the conformance profile)).




Thoughts?

Jan

Received on Wednesday, 1 March 2006 17:59:32 UTC