Re: Discussion on SC numbering

James wrote:

> If we are going to have different numbers in 2.0 vs 2.1 for the same success criteria I would very much favour the 2.1 scheme being something completely different.



Andrew wrote:

> we need to make sure that we know what we would do if we were to have a WCAG 2.2 or else we will just be in the same situation again



The most flexible would be to not have IDs, but if we do then I like James’ idea and take Andrew’s point.



How about something modular such as: letter for principle, number for guideline, letters for level, number for SC.



So from this example https://alastairc.ac/tests/wcag21-examples/wcag21-model3.html you’d have:

P1.4 A.1 Use of color

P1.4 A.2 Audio control

P1.4 A.3 Reflow to single column

P1.4 AA.1 Contrast (Minimum)

P1.4 AA.2 Graphics contrast

P1.4 AA.3 Interactive element contrast

P1.4 AA.4 Resize text

P1.4 AA.5 Resize Content

P1.4 AA.5 Images of text

P1.4 AA.6 Visual presentation

P1.4 AAA.1 Contrast (Enhanced)

Etc.



That allows for new SCs to be added later in the same guideline at the same level quite easily.



I can’t see any way of allowing new SCs to be inserted within a level, e.g. a new one after Graphics contrast, unless we spaced out the IDs like this:

P1.4 AA.20 Graphics contrast

P1.4 AA.30 Interactive element contrast



Then you could have a P1.4 AA.25 in WCAG 2.2. But I’m not advocating that, I think being able to append at each level is good enough and clearer.



I take David’s point about this type of thing needing a wider review, but I would want to present 2 or 3 fully thought-through solutions for a public survey such as:

-          The best update to the current systems (according the WG), model 3 perhaps?

-          No numbers.

-          This new modular approach (or the WGs preferred ‘new’ approach to numbers if this isn’t it).



Cheers,



-Alastair