Re: 6.1 - priority

Charles,
The list of elements related to accessibility is rather short for the 
current markup references (HTML, CSS1, CSS2, SMIL).  I am not sure the 
added complexity and references you suggest for conditional priorities 
would be worth the extra language and potential confusion, since it would 
be the only checkpoint in the current document with the conditional 
priority.  It would be interesting to consider this proposal if after last 
call we received comments from developers indicating the need for 
conditional priorities on the implementation of accessibility features of 
different languages.

I will add it to the issues list for discussion.

Jon


At 10:44 AM 11/1/99 -0500, Charles McCathieNevile wrote:
>Checkpoint 6.1 says "Implement the accessibility features of supported
>specifications (markup languages, style sheet languages, metadata languages,
>graphics formats, etc.). [Priority 1]"
>
>However, not all accessibility features of languages are P1. According to Web
>Content, it is P1 to have equivalent alternatives (e.g. alt and longdesc in
>HTML, and SMIL, title and desc in SVG, etc). But it is only P3 to create a
>special tabbing order.
>
>The Authoring Tool Guidelines use "relative priority" to deal with cases
>where there are a number of features to be implemented, and they have
>different priorities according to WCAG.
>
>I propose that the User Agent Guidelines adopt the definition of Relative
>priority, and apply it to 6.1
>
>The AU group decided on the current usage after trying a number of formulae,
>including separating the checkpoints, and spelling out the relative priority
>in the checkpoint text. In AU there are 7 relative priority checkpoints out
>of 28.
>
>The definition of Relative priority in those guidelines is as follows:
>
>[Relative Priority]
>
>Some checkpoints that refer to generating, authoring, or checking Web content
>have multiple priorities. The priority is dependent on the priority in the
>Web Content Accessibility Guidelines [WAI-WEBCONTENT].
>
>For example providing text equivalents for images and audio is a priority 1
>requirement in [WAI-WEBCONTENT] since without it one or more groups will find
>it impossible to access the information. Therefore, it is a priority 1
>requirement for the authoring tool to check for (4.1) or ask the author for
>(3.1) equivalent alternatives for these types of content. Expansion of
>abbreviations and acronyms with ABBR and ACRONYM elements by using the
>"title" attribute is a priority 3 in [WAI-WEBCONTENT]. Therefore, it is only
>priority 3 for the authoring tool to check for (4.1) or ask the author for
>(3.2) this information.
>
>+ It is priority 1 to implement the checkpoint for content features that are
>a priority 1 requirement in [WAI-WEBCONTENT].
>
>+ It is priority 2 to implement the checkpoint for content features that are
>a priority 2 requirement in [WAI-WEBCONTENT].
>
>+ It is priority 3 to implement the checkpoint for content features that are
>a priority 3 requirement in [WAI-WEBCONTENT].
>
>
>
>Charles McCN
>
>--Charles McCathieNevile            mailto:charles@w3.org
>phone: +1 617 258 0992   http://www.w3.org/People/Charles
>W3C Web Accessibility Initiative    http://www.w3.org/WAI
>MIT/LCS  -  545 Technology sq., Cambridge MA, 02139,  USA

Jon Gunderson, Ph.D., ATP
Coordinator of Assistive Communication and Information Technology
Chair, W3C WAI User Agent Working Group
Division of Rehabilitation - Education Services
College of Applied Life Studies
University of Illinois at Urbana/Champaign
1207 S. Oak Street, Champaign, IL  61820

Voice: (217) 244-5870
Fax: (217) 333-0248

E-mail: jongund@uiuc.edu

WWW: http://www.staff.uiuc.edu/~jongund
WWW: http://www.w3.org/wai/ua

Received on Monday, 1 November 1999 11:13:20 UTC