- From: Tom Croucher <tcroucher@netalleynetworks.com>
- Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:16:24 +0100
- To: "'WAI-GL'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Sailesh Panchang wrote: >> >> But a P3 checkpoint enhances accessibility and therefore usability >> and shows the way ahead as is intended for "best practices". So why not >> stick with the terms P1, P2 and P3... it will also be "backward >> compatible"... Goal 6 for WCAG2 in requirements doc. The required success >> criteria should be categorized as P1 or P2 or P3. Jason White wrote: > In developing WCAG 2.0, the distinctions underpinning the 1.0 priority > definitions were subjected to detailed, critical scrutiny, with the result > that the working group decided they were no longer tenable for purposes of > the 2.0 document, I have to agree with Sailesh to some extent, when I first looked at the WCAG 2.0 draft I was a little taken aback. Although I will admit the mapping document does go some of the way to easing comparison between the two versions. People using and conforming to version one might be surprised. However what has struck me as something that we should perhaps aim at is presenting a guideline which is future proofed. It is 4 years since the original guideline was published and there is still work to do on the current, this means that WCAG 1.0 will, by the time it is replaced, have had a lifetime of 5 years or more. Personally I regard the Priority 3 guidelines as eminently achievable for the most part with today's browsers and today's multimedia. As such should we not look to adding an amount of future proofing to WCAG 2.0 since it too has to last 5 years are we sure it will remain relevant? Tom Croucher Co-founder Netalley Networks (http://www.netalleynetworks.com), BSc(Hons) Computing Student / Information Services Staff University of Sunderland (http://www.sunderland.ac.uk), Accessibility Co-ordinator Plone CMS (http://www.plone.org)
Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 07:16:27 UTC