RE: Conformance levels and core /extended

In 1.0 it was  priority 1,2,3 based on user need

 

In 2.0   the dividing line between core and extended is not user need but
whether it involved constraining the content or presentation. 

Core do not make you change the document visually - just mark it up or add
hidden text (or audio) equivalents.

There are many extended checkpoints that are VERY important.

 

The closes thing we have to P1 and P2   was the two levels of implementation
for each checkpoint.  

But the discussion of late has been to drop those. 

 

The result is (or would be if we have no levels)  that we do not have any
priority rating or indications of importance.

 

It is true that all the core checkpoints are important.  But it is not true
that all the important checkpoints are core. 

 

We need to think about this.. 

 

I like the simpler form we have - but I worry that the simplicity is coming
at the expense of completeness or proper comprehension of the checkpoints.

 

Perhaps instead of core and extended we should name them something like 

- content neutral

- content amending

 

or something.   I wouldn't suggest those terms but you get the idea...  I
just can't think of the right terms off the top of my head.

 

Thoughts?

 

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of Sailesh Panchang
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 10:02 AM
To: Jason White; Web Content Accessibility Guidelines
Subject: Conformance levels and core /extended

 

I do not see how the "impossible/difficult/easier approach worked out in
WCAG 1.0" corresponding to P1, P2, P3 terms is different from core and
extended. Core checkpoints signify that they are vital to accessibilitty
just as the P1 or "impossible to access" checkpoints indicated in 1.0. 

What is termed as extended now are supposed to enhance
accessibility/usability just as P2 and P3 checkpoints did.

I fail to see how they are "very different"  from the P1, p2 scheme and why
the  WCAG1 scheme is "untenable". If   "conceptions of conformance levels
have changed so radically " since 1.0, these are not brought out in the WCAG
2.0 requirements doc nor explained in the WCAG 2. I believe it is really
important to convey these differences especially to advocate transition from
WCAG 1 to 2.0. Can I turn to some document for the new concepts underlying
WCAG 2? Nor have the terms core and extended been defined anywhere in WCAG
2.0. The choice of terms "core" and "extended" certainly need further
deliberation and justification.

Sailesh Panchang

 

On Tuesday, September 16, 2003 12:07 AM Jason White
<mailto:jasonw@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>   wrote 

Subject: Re: Conformance levels and best practices

"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.

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.
"




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.