- From: Lofton Henderson <lofton@rockynet.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 18:01:20 -0600
- To: "Kirill Gavrylyuk" <kirillg@microsoft.com>
- Cc: www-qa@w3.org
At 01:38 PM 5/23/02 -0700, you wrote: >Hi, Karl, >the motive was to match the WAI. I remember Ian recommended us to adopt >this numbering format. As I recalled, Ian once suggested "A, double-A, triple-A", which is what WAI uses. At [1] I found this: "Here's why we chose "Level Double-A" instead of "Level 2": It wasn't clear to people that "2" meant "Priority 1 AND 2 requirements are met." It could be interpreted as "no priority 1 requirements are met, only those P2 and below (P3).". I would recommend sticking with A/AA/AAA just because that system is already familiar to people within W3C. Is there an important reason for changing nomenclature?" -Lofton. p.s. If we were to decide that there was reason to change, how about: Q, double-Q, triple-Q? WAI uses "double-A" instead of "AA", for the reason that its more accessible, I'm told. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-qa-wg/2002Jan/0062.html
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 20:00:10 UTC