- From: Anne Pemberton <apembert@erols.com>
- Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 07:24:39 -0400
- To: jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au, w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Jason,
Very much like where you are going with this. May I suggest the
terms Essential (as you use it) and "Supplemental" ..... this avoids using
the word "recommended" in a new context.
Anne
At 06:40 PM 8/26/01 +1000, Jason White wrote:
>General structure of the conformance scheme:
>the WCAG 1.0 priority scheme. A checkpoint within a particular class
>is essential if failure to satisfy it will render the content
>inaccessible to identifiable groups of users whose needs are addressed
>by the checkpoint.
>
>Conformance class 1, Device and modality independence:
>
>Essential: checkpoints 1.1, 1.2, 1.5 and 4.1.
>
>Recommended: checkpoints 1.3, 1.4, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4.
>
>Conformance class 2, Interaction and navigation:
>
>Essential: Checkpoints 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7.
>
>Recommended: checkpoints 2.1 and 2.2.
>
>Note: this is where it starts to break down; any checkpoint under
>guideline 2, if not satisfied, will arguably make the content
>inaccessible to somebody.
>
>Conformance class 3, Comprehension:
>
>Essential: checkpoints 3.3, 3.4 and 3.5.
>
>Recommended: checkpoints 3.1 and 3.2.
>
>3. Drop the "conformance classes" as defined above, and simply require
> that a conformance claim list the checkpoints which have been met.
> This version of the conformance scheme could be implemented with or
> without the notion of "essential checkpoints" (see proposal 2,
> above).
Anne Pemberton
apembert@erols.com
http://www.erols.com/stevepem
http://www.geocities.com/apembert45
Received on Sunday, 26 August 2001 07:45:17 UTC