- From: Jan Richards <jan.richards@utoronto.ca>
- Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2007 14:30:06 -0500
- To: w3c-wai-au@w3.org
On yesterday's call I took an action item to follow up on TB's suggestion that we ensure our wording is harmonized with that of WCAG 2.0... Checking WCAG 2.0 I found the following explanation of levels: Level 1 success criteria: - Achieve a minimum level of accessibility. - Can reasonably be applied to all Web content. Level 2 success criteria: - Achieve an enhanced level of accessibility. - Can reasonably be applied to all Web content. Level 3 success criteria: - Achieve additional accessibility enhancements. - Can not necessarily be applied to all Web content. I therefore suggest that we use the terms "minimum level of accessibility", "enhanced level of accessibility" and "additional accessibility enhancements" instead of the terms I previously proposed. So the new wording for each checkpoint that is currently [Relative Priority] would be: [Priority 1 for a *minimum level of accessibility*, Priority 2 for an *enhanced level of accessibility*, Priority 3 for *additional accessibility enhancements*] Cheers, Jan Jan Richards wrote: > (6) In the guidelines, break the term: > > [Relative Priority] > > into > > [Priority 1 for *essential accessibility issues*, Priority 2 for > *important accessibility issues*, Priority 3 for *beneficial > accessibility issues*]
Received on Tuesday, 13 February 2007 19:30:54 UTC