Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1

>Count me in...
Great stuff David - do link in with John. Use the wiki to capture your 
thoughts/suggestions. [1]

Thanks

Josh

[1]  https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/WCAG_2.1_SC_Numbering

>
>Here's a few thoughts as we prepare to discuss it.
>
>- Any new Success Criterion that is under a *NEW* Guideline can have 
>the regular 3 level number without colliding with another SC number . 
>(This is the case with most of the proposed mobile SCs, i.e., Pointer 
>2.5.1))
>
>- Guidelines 1.1, 1.3 and 4.1 only have Level A SCs so any new SCs 
>under them can keep the 3 number format without colliding with anything 
>... just add x.y.z numbering after the last existing SCs at the desired 
>level.
>
>- The real issue of collision is for new A or AA SCs under existing 
>Guidelines that have AA of AAA already there. That is
>    1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4.
>
>Any new Success Criteria that have the x.x.x schema under these 
>Guidelines would have to go at the end. So a new AA SC would end up 
>after an existing AAA in the number Guideline (i.e. a new COGA AA under 
>GL "2.2 Enough time" would be 2.2.6, would have to follow the 2.2.5 
>Re-authentication AAA).
>
>We would have to address that issue something like:
>
>-Giving it a prefix, or a suffix,
>- Simply presenting them out of order and grouped by Level
>- Or creating a new guideline for these SCs.
>
>For SC's that modify an existing SC then perhaps adding a 4th level 
>x.x.x.x would be necessary. But the 4th level would not be appropriate 
>for anything else because it would cause the NEW SC to be a sub of an 
>existing SC.
>
>
>Cheers,
>David MacDonald
>
>
>CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
>
>Tel:  613.235.4902
>LinkedIn
>
>twitter.com/davidmacd
>
>GitHub
>
>http://www.can-adapt.com/
>
>
>
>   Adapting the web to all users
>
>             Including those with disabilities
>
>If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy
>
>On Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 5:47 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> 
>wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>From: John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com]
>>Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 4:32 PM
>>
>>
>>I would be interested in this activity. I have some thoughts on this 
>>already (I know, shocking huh?), but I'm also interested to hear 
>>other's ideas as well.
>>
>>[Jason] A solution that might work would be to add a prefix letter 
>>(e.g., “x”) to the number of every modified or promoted success 
>>criterion. This would clearly distinguish version 2.1 from version 2.0 
>>success criteria for authors, evaluation tools and in other contexts.
>>
>>I think it should be decided, case by case, whether to rewrite and 
>>expand the scope of an existing guideline or success criterion, or 
>>whether to introduce a new one. Readability for users of version 2.1 
>>would have priority, in my mind, over backward compatibility. Once 
>>people move to the new version, the older version becomes much less 
>>relevant to most of their work.
>>
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged 
>>or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual 
>>for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you 
>>received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not 
>>disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the 
>>contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any 
>>other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>>
>>
>>Thank you for your compliance.
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>