RE: Implementation Technique Numbering


Restating what I suggested in March (with the inclusion of possible er and
xag checkpoint #s) 
this an idea for relevent numbering:
    a(checkpoint#)- t(technique#)  =(or~)  w(WCAG checkpoint#) (space)
Priority Level

    a = atag checkpoint
    u = uaag checkpoint
    w = wcag checkpoint
    e = er checkpoint (?)
    x = xag checkpoint
    P = priority level
    t = technique number
    a(ATAG checkpoint#)- t(technique#)  =(or~)  w(WCAG checkpoint#) (space)
Priority Level......RESOLVES TO THIS..........

    a3.2-t1=w5.2 P1


    a1.3-t2~w2.1 P1


    a6.4.1-t2=w3.2 P1

    But for ATAG 1.1, which is not relative, it would be:


(in the main guidelines this could be used as:
    a3.2=w5.2  P1)

I think the use of lowercase letters makes the numbers easier to
determine, but that is just me. Stuck with uppercase for Priority Level
because that has been used all along.

If you are not doing a comparison per say, the technique number would just

	w2.3-t4 P1

This convention could then possibly be used across all WAI checkpoints and
technique docs.

	u6.2-t1~w4.2 P2


	w4.2-t14 P1~u6.5-t10


	x2.2-t6~w4.2.5 P1

If you are not doing a comparison per say, the technique number would just

w2.3-t4 P1

x2.2-t1 P2

I think I might be forgetting some of our past discussions on this, please
forgive my memory.
Hope you are well................................Katie

Katie Haritos-Shea
Assistive Technology/Section 508 
Program Manager, MILVETS
Direct: 301-731-1821
Voice: 301-731-9130
Fax: 301-731-4773

MILVETS Systems Technology, Inc.
4601 Forbes Boulevard
Suite 300
Lanham, Maryland

"The best and most beautiful things in the world
     cannot be seen or even touched.
    They must be felt with the heart."
                - Helen Keller

Internet/Software/Device Accessibility and Standards

-----Original Message-----
From: Jan Richards []
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 11:14 AM
To: Haritos-Shea, Katie
Subject: Implementation Technique Numbering


Remember the ATAG implementation technique numbering proposal? Here are
my thoughts:

The "T####" method has become more and more untenable as techniques are
reordered, added, and removed. The resultant willy-nilly numbering
sequence is no help whatsoever when trying to find a technique.

Any attempt to give techniques new permanent numbers would be vulnerable
to the same problem.

I think that the best we can hope for is a
guideline#.checpoint#.technique# scheme (ex. 2.1.1) that changes as
techniques are moved around, added and deleted. At least it make editing

Your thoughts?


Jan Richards, User Interface Design Specialist
Adaptive Technology Resource Centre (ATRC), University of Toronto

  Phone: 416-946-7060
  Fax:   416-971-2896

Received on Wednesday, 14 August 2002 11:36:32 UTC