RE: Paragraph on rational for abandoning the "Priority" system

Good start. The first part of insert is right on the money.  However, the
levels do not reflect the amount of change.

They are a mixture.   The mixture is in the latest draft.

I would go with your start. Then just say "the three levels are determined
as follows" 

 

Or something like that.

 

Thanks David.

 

 
Gregg

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

-----Original Message-----
From: w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org [mailto:w3c-wai-gl-request@w3.org] On Behalf
Of David MacDonald
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2003 3:28 PM
To: 'Ben Caldwell'; w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
Cc: 'Wendy A Chisholm'
Subject: Paragraph on rational for abandoning the "Priority" system

 

I was tasked with introducing a paragraph that gave the rational for our
shift away from the 1.0 "Priority" system. I've tried to put it into lay
persons terms so that most people, including those whose first language is
not English, can understand it. I suggest the explanation be added to the
section of the Guidelines called "Priorities and Techniques".  Here is how
the whole section would read with the inserted paragraph

Priorities and Techniques

This WCAG 2.0 Working Draft does not assign priorities to guidelines, as did
WCAG 1.0. Instead, guidelines include three levels of success criteria.

The main WCAG 2.0 Working Draft document does not include
technology-specific implementation requirements or techniques, but it does
include links to technology-specific requirements as well as
technology-specific examples and techniques.

This Working Draft of WCAG 2.0 is a follow-on and evolution of WCAG 1.0 and
reflects feedback received since the publication of WCAG 1.0 in May 1999.
Although the same approaches to accessibility are followed in 1.0 and 2.0,
the organization and structure have been improved significantly.[insert
starts here] One significant change is that the 2.0 version of the
guidelines are not divided up according to "Priority".  The reason for this
is that each success criteria, regardless of priority category that it would
fall into, could make the critical difference between accessibility and
inaccessibility for some group of users.  Given this, it is impossible to
make some checkpoints more important than others without implying that some
users are more important than others.  Thus, the guidelines have been
reorganized based upon the degree to which a checkpoint may require an
author to adjust the presentation or expression of content.    [end of
insert]

In addition, the principles have been worded to make it easier to understand
their application across the wide range of existing and emerging
technologies.

The Web Content Accessibility Guidelines Working Group is working carefully
to enable organizations and individuals that are currently using WCAG 1.0
(which remains stable and referenceable at this time) to ensure that they
will eventually be able to make a smooth transition to WCAG 2.0. To
understand how this eventual transition would be facilitated, please refer
to the (draft) Mapping Between WCAG
<http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/2003/10/27-mapping.html>  1.0 and the WCAG 2.0
Working Draft for more detail on current correspondences.

-----------

 Cheers

David MacDonald

 =========================

 Access Empowers People...

       ...Barriers Disable Them

          <http://www.eramp.com/> www.eramp.com