Re: Murky ratings

I also heard the term Crucial, to replace Required.

> Changing the names of the categories would certainly be helpful, but it
> would also be necessary to ensure that the definitions of the revised
> categories were appropriate. The designation "required", as it presently
> stands, is strictly interpreted, and it is this interpretation of the term
> which I suspect is likely to create confusion. A useful question to ask
> is what purpose is served by attaching different levels of importance to
> each of the guidelines. The answer seems to be that it establishes an
> order of priorities: the "required" guidelines would need to be
> implemented with greater urgency and thoroughness, when creating or, more
> significantly, updating an HTML document, whereas the "recommended" items
> can, so the term implies, be postponed. This is reasonable, so long as a
> page which conformed to only the "required" guidelines would be
> practically usable. It is from this standpoint that the classification of
> guidelines ought to be decided. It should also be reflected in the
> definitions by evoking a "practically unusable" criterion as the basis for
> making a guideline "required" (or whatever the label ultimately chosen
> turns out to be). I think, incidentally, that "paramount" would be an
> appropriate term, as Daniel suggests. Perhaps "paramount" and
> "recommended" would be best, or even "paramount", "strongly recommended"
> and "recommended". In the latter case, "paramount" would retain the
> definition presently ascribed to "required". In the former case, namely if
> the two-level scheme were preserved, "paramount" should be given a less
> restrictive definition by introducing the concept of practical usability.
>

Received on Wednesday, 6 May 1998 03:28:43 UTC