Re: Conformance Level - EO opportunity

For the full discussion from GL see

 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/1999JulSep/thread.html#4


At 08:26 AM 7/5/99 -0700, Robert Neff wrote:
>When I am giving demonstrations to lay people and developers who are trying
>to get up to speed on Priorities and Conformance level,  I get the biggest
>blank faces on Priority and Conformance level.
>
>I see two definitions as an impediment to the WCAG's adpotion and
>understanding.  I liken Priorities and Conformance level to the extra click.
>So how can we have better usability and adoption of the the WCAG?  Simple,
>by eliminating one click - Prioritites!

AG::

I would characterise this as "an Education and Outreach _opportunity_."

Having both a 1 2 3 notation for checkpoint priorities and an A AA AAA
scheme of ratings for satisfied-checkpoint sets is confusing the first time
it is encountered.

In a tutorial context, on can define P2 first as "a checkpoint you need to
pass to get your second 'A'.  It is required for AA conformance but not for
A conformance level.  [The '2' in 'P2' goes with your _second_ A; hint,
hint!]"  That is enough answer for those who want you to "just tell me
_what_ I have to do."  And for many of the people you brief that is the
first question that they want answered.

On the other hand, I firmly believe what the GL working group said by
refusing to define the priorities that way.  It is important to have the
"why" for these checkpoints clearly laid out as well as the "what."  And
the "why" for being included in this group is related to the severity of
impact when the checkpoint is not met.

Priorities can be explained in terms of a) their conformance rating
consequences and b) their usability consequences.  For tutorial purposes,
it is good to have both of these explanations handy.  This can be handled
in the teacher's guide materials from EO, it would seem to me, and not
require changes to the Guidelines document itself at least until there are
other reasons requiring a version update.

>
>I can see managers out there trying to get involved and confusing the issue.
>I already see confusion brewing in the trenches.  Therefore, I propose we
>make this as simple as we can!
>
>good day, rob
>
>P.S.  W3C server is not responding
>

Received on Tuesday, 6 July 1999 08:47:33 UTC