Consideration of work load

What level of responsibility does the Working Group have to ensure that
the overall work load caused by the checkpoints is resonable and
practical for Web content developers to bear?

I think that the Working Group is agreed that the feasibility of
implementing a checkpoint must not influence the priorty assigned to
the checkpoint.

Nevertheless, I have argued that issues of cost and feasibility must
influence whether the checkpoint is included in the guidelines at all. 

Elaborating upon that thought, I would like to suggest that the Working
Group needs to look not only at the work load associated with each
individual checkpoint, but also whether the cumulative load imposed by
the entire set of checkpoints is reasonable.

To do otherwise, one could still have a guideline document for which
the each checkpoint had an accurate priority rating but for which the
triple-A (or other level) of conformance was impractical for all but a
few Web content developers to implement.

I believe that it is entirely within the purview (and opportunity) of
the Working Group ensure that, in its opinion, the work load imposed by
the triple-A conformance level is reasonable practical for the majority
of Web content developers. 

To reiterate the question, is it within the scope of work of the
Working Group to evaluate the guidelines from the standpoint of overall
workload upon the Web content developer? If so, what process is or
should be in place to perform this task?


===
Eric G. Hansen
Development Scientist, Educational Testing Service
ETS 12-R
Rosedale Road
Princeton, NJ 08541
(W) 609-734-5615, (Fax) 609-734-1090
Internet: ehansen@ets.org 
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Received on Thursday, 22 April 1999 08:38:45 UTC