RE: Conformance levels and best practices

I've always found the term "extended" troublesome, though I've not said
so before because I haven't been able quite to put my finger on the
problem.  For that matter, "core" isn't so easy either.

Would it work to replace "core" and "extended" with "minimum" and
"advanced," respectively? If not, what do "core" and "extended" actually
mean, and what connotations do we need to be sure to capture and
preserve?  (Answers to this question might help us come up with better
terminology and/or clearer statements about the conformance scheme.  If
we're having so much trouble with it, I fear that our end users will
find it even more difficult.)

John


"Good design is accessible design." 
Please note our new name and URL!
John Slatin, Ph.D.
Director, Accessibility Institute
University of Texas at Austin
FAC 248C
1 University Station G9600
Austin, TX 78712
ph 512-495-4288, f 512-495-4524
email jslatin@mail.utexas.edu
web http://www.utexas.edu/research/accessibility/


 



-----Original Message-----
From: Jason White [mailto:jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au] 
Sent: Monday, September 15, 2003 11:07 pm
To: Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
Subject: Re: Conformance levels and best practices





On Mon, 15 Sep 2003, Sailesh Panchang wrote:
>
> 1. I believe the words Priority 1, 2 and 3 with their definitions
conveyed  that the focus of the checkpoints was on successively
increasing levels of   accessibility ... vital -essential-desirable for
accessibility, in a way better than that conveyed by the  terms coreand
extended. Admittedly, there   are different perspectives on the priority
levels assigned to some checkpoints in WCAG1. 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.

Others have argued, however, that precisely because the conceptions of
conformance levels have changed so radically between WCAG 1.0 and WCAG
2.0, the same terms (Priority 1, Priority 2 and Priority 3) should not
be carried forward into the 2.0 document, as this would create confusion
for those who are already acquainted with the 1.0 conformance structure
and its definitions.

To summarize, the WCAG 1.0 priorities were built on the idea that
adherence to certain design principles would, respectively, remove
barriers that precluded access to the content by identifiable groups of
users (P1), barriers that made it very difficult for certain groups to
access the content (P2) and difficulties that reduced the effectiveness
with which the content could be accessed. This explanation, I should
emphasize, is only my hasty attempt to give an informal summary of the
1.0 definitions, and should in no way be interpreted as supplementing,
clarifying or replacing the formal definitions in the 1.0 document.

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, and that a new set of distinctions was
needed to classify checkpoints and success criteria in constructing the
2.0 conformance scheme. The argument for new terminology, then, is that
unless different terms were used, readers acquainted with 1.0 would
construe 2.0 as following the same, or a similar, system of priorities
and conformance levels as WCAG 1.0, and would make policy decisions and
claims about accessibility on that erroneous, but tempting,
presupposition. The new terminology is supposed to signal the fact that
the 2.0 categories of core and extended are very different from the 1.0
priorities, and that the impossible/difficult/easier approach worked out
in the 1.0 conformance scheme does not apply to 2.0.

My purpose in stating these arguments is not to defend them, though I do
happen to find them persuasive, but to attempt to recapitulate the
reasons which led the working group to the conclusion that new
terminology was needed and that retention of the old terminology would
do more harm than good.

Comments, counter-arguments and proposals are, of course, most welcome.
If anyone is dissatisfied with the working group's prior decisions on
this matter, the issue should be re-opened in the context of our ongoing
conformance discussion.

Received on Tuesday, 16 September 2003 09:36:36 UTC