- From: eric hansen <ehansen@ets.org>
- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 1999 16:21:20 -0500 (EST)
- To: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
This memo is intended to clarify the meaning of the priority levels that the document attaches to the checkpoints. The opinions stated in this document are my own. The priority assigned to each checkpoint is based on severity of the adverse affect on access to Web page information by disability groups when there is violation of the checkpoint. The guidelines document shows the priority rating for each checkpoint but it does not (except perhaps inadvertently) tell specifically which group was most severely affected for each checkpoint. (The guidelines document usually provides some description of affected groups, but this information is provided at the guideline level rather than at the checkpoint level.) Thus, this document is an attempt to answer the question: "Which group(s) is/are most impacted by violation of each checkpoint?" For almost all checkpoints, I have indicated (at least) one disability group that I think is most impacted. As one can see, I have made several suggestions regarding changed priority ratings, reworded checkpoints, and deletion of checkpoints. This document assumes that the reference set of disabilities is as follows: blind, low vision [not including color deficit], color deficit, deaf, hard of hearing, cognitive disability, learning disability, physical disability, seizure disorder [except photosensitive epilepsy], and photosensitive epilepsy. If one changes the reference set of disabilities, the Priority ratings could be different. For example, I believe that treating "deaf-blind" as a separate group would result in checkpoint 2.4 changing from Priority 2 to Priority 1. (It may be appropriate to do that.) One could also separate out dyslexia from learning disability; I don't know that it would result in any differences in checkpoint priorities. I have seen some indication that the working group may clarify the guideline document's position toward nonreaders. If it turns out that the main focus of the document is delimited to individuals who are "readers" (as opposed to nonreaders), then that may cause changes as well. I invite others to correct me if my most-impacted-group selections or my reference set of disability groups are incorrect. I think that it is important to reach consensus on these issues. Without a consensus, the meaning of the priority ratings will be unclear. The first column (LineNumber) is the line number. The second column (Checkpoint [or Guideline explanation]) provides the number of the checkpoint; the plain number 1 through 16 refers to the explanatory material for the Guideline. The third column (Group Most Affected) is my guess at the group that was most affected. The fourth column (Notes) provides additional notes. In some case, as you will see, I have suggested changes. Columns are separated by a verticle bar, I. LineNumber | Checkpoint (or Guideline explanation) | Group Most Affected | Notes 1 | 1 | | 2 | 1.1 | blind | 3 | 1.2 | blind | 4 | 1.3 | blind | 5 | 1.4 | blind | 6 | 1.5 | blind | 7 | 1.6 | blind | 8 | 2 | | 9 | 2.1 | blind | 10 | 2.2 | blind | The wording should be revised to say: 2.1 "Provide a long text {EH: or "textual"} equivalent of each graphic, script, or applet that conveys important information. [Priority 1]." I assume that LONGDESC was not truly intended. I assume, for example, that a d-link description would be OK. 11 | 2.3 | blind | The meaning of the term "auditory description" will be unclear to many people. How about "2.3 For movies, provide an auditory description {EH: Is this the accepted term?} (an auditory equivalent of the visual action) that is synchronized with the original audio."? The techniques document can explain the mechanism. 12 | 2.4 | blind | This must become a Priority 1 checkpoint if deaf-blind is among the reference groups. 13 | 3 | | 14 | 3.1 | deaf | 15 | 3.2 | deaf | 16 | 3.3 | deaf | 17 | 4 | | 18 | 4.1 | color deficit | 19 | 4.2 | color deficit | 20 | 5 | Fails to mention affected groups. | 21 | 5.1 | blind | 22 | 5.2 | blind | 23 | 5.3 | blind | 24 | 5.4 | blind | Not sure if "blind" is correct. 25 | 5.5 | blind | 26 | 5.6 | blind | 27 | 6 | | 28 | 6.1 | cognitive disability | 29 | 6.2 | cognitive disability | 30 | 6.3 | cognitive disability | 31 | 7 | | 32 | 7.1 | blind | 33 | 7.2 | blind | 34 | 7.3 | blind | 35 | 7.4 | blind | 36 | 7.5 | cognitive disability | While I think that a Priority 3 may be appropriate for the blind population, I think that the impact on individuals with cognitive disability deafness or learning disabilities warrants a Priority 2. 37 | 7.6 | blind | 38 | 8 | | 39 | 8.1 | blind | 40 | 8.2 | blind | 41 | 8.3 | blind | 42 | 8.4 | blind | 43 | 8.5 | blind | 44 | 9 | | 45 | 9.1 | cognitive disability, physical disability, blind, photosensitive epilepsy. (?) | 46 | 9.2 | cognitive disability, physical disability, blind, photosensitive epilepsy. (?) | 47 | 9.3 | photosensitive epilepsy | 48 | 9.4 | cognitive disability, physical disability, blind, photosensitive epilepsy. (?) | 49 | 10 | | 50 | 10.1 | blind | 51 | 11 | | 52 | 11.1 | blind | 53 | 11.2 | blind | 54 | 11.3 | blind | 55 | 11.4 | blind | 56 | 12 | | 57 | 12.1 | blind | 58 | 12.2 | blind | I wonder if this is sufficiently important to include in the guidelines. This seems disruptive to conventions of Web development. 59 | 12.3 | blind | 60 | 12.4 | blind | 61 | 12.5 | blind | 62 | 13 | | 63 | 13.1 | blind | I assume that individuals who are blind would benefit most, but it is hard to judge. 64 | 13.2 | blind | I assume that that individuals who are blind are most severely impacted. 65 | 13.3 | NA | NA, subsumed under 13.4 66 | 13.4 | blind | I assume that that individuals who are blind are most severely impacted. 67 | 13.5 | blind | I assume that that individuals who are blind are most severely impacted. 68 | 14 | | 69 | 14.1 | blind | 70 | 14.2 | cognitive disability | 71 | 14.3 | blind or cognitive disability | 72 | 14.4 | blind | 73 | 14.5 | blind or cognitive disability (?) | 74 | 15 | | 75 | 15.1 | cognitive disability | 76 | 15.2 | cognitive disability | 77 | 15.3 | cognitive disability | Should be Priority 2 instead of Priority 3. 78 | 15.4 | cognitive disability | Should be Priority 2 instead of Priority 3. (??) 79 | 15.5 | cognitive disability | Should be Priority 2 instead of Priority 3. (??) 80 | 15.6 | cognitive disability | Should be Priority 2 instead of Priority 3. (??) 81 | 15.7 | cognitive disability | Wouldn't it make more sense to first require the presence of a site search capability (Priority 2) rather than requiring "different types of searches [Priority 3]"? 82 | 15.8 | cognitive disability | Some this checkpoint language appears in the Techniques section on checkpoint 16.1. Checkpoint 16.1 is Priority 1. Is checkpoint 15.8 actually needed? 83 | 15.9 | ??? | Is this a disability access issue at all? I am inclined to remove this checkpoint from the document. 84 | 15.10 | blind | 85 | 16 | | 86 | 16.1 | cognitive disability | Use slightly revised language per suggestion of last week. 87 | 16.2 | cognitive disability | Use revised language and priority rating [Priority 2] per suggestion of last week. 88 | 16.3 | cognitive disability | Should be Priority 2 instead of Priority 3. ============================= Eric G. Hansen, Ph.D. Development Scientist Educational Testing Service ETS 12-R Rosedale Road Princeton, NJ 08541 (W) 609-734-5615 (Fax) 609-734-1090 E-mail: ehansen@ets.org
Received on Tuesday, 16 March 1999 17:43:13 UTC