Re: numbering proposal

for "internationalization" of the reference, instead of M, S, T why don't
use roman number?

I (first)
II (second)
III (third)

Also this could be a mind-back for people that knows A, AA, AAA

These my two cents :)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gregg Vanderheiden" <>
To: "'Jonathan Chetwynd'" <>; "'Wendy A Chisholm'"
Cc: <>
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 1:27 AM
Subject: RE: numbering proposal

Hi Jonathan

We do not have A, AA, AAA anymore.

And M, S and T   are  Minimum, Second and Third
So they replace 1, 2, 3


 -- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Ind. Engr. & BioMed Engr.
Director - Trace R & D Center
University of Wisconsin-Madison

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf
Of Jonathan Chetwynd
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 3:01 PM
To: Wendy A Chisholm
Subject: Re: numbering proposal


whilst M,S and T are consistent in there usage, and repeated regularly
throughout the Guidelines, really there seams little reason for
reducing Navigable to N.
This has been discussed at length with regard to some HTML attribute, I
forget which.
The point is that for very little extra text the meaning is more
immediately transparent.

back on M,S and T, don't we already have A, AA and AAA as well as 1,2
and 3 do we need another tier?



On Friday, March 14, 2003, at 09:48 PM, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:

> Hello,
> On the mailing list, we have had some discussion about numbering
> success criteria [1].  Jason, Gregg, Ben, and I were editing the next
> draft and came up with the following proposal.
> If each guideline was identified by a letter (e.g., "N" for
> "Navigable") rather than a number (3) and if each conformance letter
> was identified by a letter (M for Minimum, S for Second Level, T for
> Third Level), then each success criterion could have a unique
> identifier (e.g., N3M1, N3M2, N3S1).
> For example, the current checkpoint 3.4 with the proposed scheme:
> Checkpoint N4 Provide consistent and predictable responses to user
> actions.
> Success criteria
> You will have successfully met Checkpoint N4 at the Minimum Level if:
>   N4M1. where inconsistent or unpredictable responses are essential
>        to the function of the content (e.g. mystery games, adventure
>        games, tests, etc.) the user is warned in advance of
> encountering them.
>   N4M2. wherever there are extreme changes in context, one of the
> following
>       is true:
>       a. an easy to find setting, that persists for the site visit, is
> provided
>           for the user to deactivate processes or features that cause
>           extreme changes in context or
>       b. extreme changes in context are identified before they occur
>           so the user can determine if they wish to proceed or so they
>           can be prepared for the change
> At the Second Level:
>   N4S1. the content has been reviewed, and it has been found that where
>       inconsistent or unpredictable responses are essential to its
>       function (e.g. mystery games, adventure games, tests, etc.),
>       the user is warned in advance of encountering them
> At the Third Level:
> (presently no additional criteria for this level.)
> ===
> Pros and Cons:
>   - Should sound better for screen reader users since there are not
>      multiple numbers that are read in a row and the numbers follow
>      the letters.
>   - Creates a unique identifier for each success criterion.
>   - Might be harder to decipher the checkpoints.
>   - Is not consistent with WCAG 1.0, ATAG 1.0, or UAAG 1.0
>     numbering schemes.
>   - However, since it is different and since some people need to
>     conform to both WCAG and ATAG or WCAG and UAAG,
>     they are less likely to confuse ATAG/UAAG checkpoint 3.4
>     with WCAG 2.0 checkpoint N4.
>   - Not sure that it help distinguish our conformance levels from
>      those of WCAG 1.0 (Level A, Level AA, Level AAA) and
>      the priority scheme (priority 1, 2, 3).  Although, we did make
>      a minor change: previous "Level 2" is "Second Level"
>      and "Level 3" is "Third Level."
> Discussion questions:
>   1. Is this easier or harder to decipher than the previous proposals?
>       i.e., or 1.1-1a ?
>   2. Is it a benefit that this is different from the WCAG/ATAG/UAAG 1.0
>       numbering scheme or will it cause confusion?
>   3. Our preliminary tests showed this was better for screen
>        reader users.  Do you agree or disagree?
>   4. Other issues or comments about this proposal?
> We discussed some other possibilities but discarded those because:
> 1. we wanted to associate the checkpoint with the guideline in some
> way to preserve the grouping (thus we didn't want to assign a unique
> number to each checkpoint).
> 2. we wanted to make something that would not be garbled by a screen
> reader (1.1.-1a was read as "one one one ah" instead of "one one one
> A").
> [1]
> [2]
> [3]
> --
> wendy a chisholm
> world wide web consortium
> web accessibility initiative
> /--

Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2003 03:39:06 UTC