RE: Numbering Success Criteria

I think something that explicitly includes the levels is also a good idea.
I think option 4 is good but I think we are going to confuse people with
using a, b and c, instead of a, aa, and aaa. I know screen-readers have
problems differentiating between a, aa and aaa, so I think 1.1.Level.1 is a
good idea.

Gian

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
Behalf Of Marja-Riitta Koivunen
Sent: Tuesday, 10 December 2002 7:43 AM
To: Wendy A Chisholm; [email protected]
Subject: Re: Numbering Success Criteria



I'm still not convinced we want to do the levels for each checkpoint and if
all levels exists for all checkpoints (e.g. can some checkpoints have no
level 1?).

But if you want to number them why not just use 1.1.level1 or
1.1.level2.1  or shorter 1.1.l1 and 1.1.l2.1? Or something else that spells
out what the parts of the number are.

Marja