RE: Priorities

I think Techniques should inherit priority from the Checkpoints too. It
would not be necessary for Techniques to identify their priority then,
though we may choose to do so for convenience.

I agree that, though the Techniques may be treated as normative (tools may
fully conform to them), we probably don't want to actually make it so. Chris
brings up good reasons for that. I'd also say that the Techniques are
properly viewed as an "interpretation" of the WCAG; making them normative
might freeze some of the room for interpretation and thus take us out of our
own bounds.

Michael

> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-wai-er-ig-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Wendy A Chisholm
> Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2000 3:01 PM
> To: Chris Ridpath; w3c-wai-er-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Priorities
>
>
>
> >
> > > If the priority of the WCAG checkpoint is not inherited, then
> how do we
> > > define priorities for this document?
> > >
> >The techniques should inherit the priority of the WCAG checkpoint.
>
> ok.
>
> then do we need a priority on each technique or can we just leave them on
> the checkpoint?  I guess if we want the techniques to stand on their own,
> then we should include priorities on techniques.
>
> > > If we are expecting people to conform to it, then I think
> that implies we
> > > want to take this to Recommendation status.  Do we want to take it to
> > > Recommendation or release it as a Note?
> > >
> >What are the politics involved in taking it to a Recommendation? Would it
> >slow us down?
>
> I think we should ask what effect we want to have rather than how long it
> will take us to reach our goal.  As I see it, the question is, "is this
> document informative or normative?"  in other words are we creating
> something that acts as a guide for people who are creating E&R
> tools (a W3C
> Note), or is this something that they will want to conform to and
> become an
> industry "standard" (a W3C Recommendation). (probably not the best
> description of the differences...)
>
> At this point, I think we are working towards a Note.  It seems to be
> supportive material for the other 3 guidelines documents (WCAG,
> ATAG, UAAG).
>
> thoughts?
>
> --wendy
> --
> wendy a chisholm
> world wide web consortium
> web accessibility initiative
> madison, wi usa
> tel: +1 608 663 6346
> /--
>

Received on Tuesday, 25 January 2000 16:17:07 UTC