Re: Editorial changes to SC

​I could live with that rational... do you think we should remove numbers
where they are in WCAG 2?
1.4.8
3.3.4
3.3.6

However, I would not like to loose the actual bullets such as has been done
in the current 2.1 draft. I don't think we want definition lists instead of
the bullets... missing the visual bullet I think hinders comprehension.​


Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn
<http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>

twitter.com/davidmacd

GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>

www.Can-Adapt.com <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
<http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>

On Fri, Sep 8, 2017 at 9:59 AM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> wrote:

> Using list numbering to refer to things is very brittle. Things can change
> all the time in ways that affect numbering, and if we start using
> particular numbers to refer to particular things and don't want to change
> numbers as a result, it puts a major constraint on our work for a fairly
> artificial reason.
>
> I would also argue that ordered lists should only be used when there is an
> inherent sequential order required for meaning in the list. I did not find
> any SC where I believed that to be the case. I think with any of these SC,
> if we changed the order of list items the SC would mean the same thing.
>
> If you want to be able to easily refer to list items in a SC, you should
> use the lists with headers approach, used by many SC, and implemented as
> definition lists in our source code. I personally would like to see all SC
> use that pattern, but did not propose it as a rule, and did not consider it
> merely editorial to introduce that pattern to SC that weren't using it. If
> somebody wants to make proposals we could decide to implement that on SC
> during the normalization period of the next couple months, or the WG could
> declare that editorial and delegate me to do it.
>
> Michael
>
> On 08/09/2017 2:51 AM, David MacDonald wrote:
>
> In general I think they look great and it helps a lot...
>
> I would like to discuss with the group the option of making all bulleted
> lists into orderded lists that are numbered... it would then be easier to
> refer to individual bullets in reports of conformance.
>
> For instance in User Interface components if referring to the part on
> Inactive components an evaluator could list.
>
> 1.4.12 #2
> OR
> 1.1.12.2
>
> Currently many SCs don't have bullets OR numbers which is a departure from
> WCAG 2
>
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#graphics-contrast
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#user-interface-component-contrast-minimum
>
> Even some of  the WCAG 2 SCs that have bullets in the original don't have
> them in the last draft.
> See the original 1.4.3
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG20/#visual-audio-contrast
> VS
> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#contrast-minimum
>
> And I think the latest draft is confusing without these bullets because it
> looks more like glossary terms than part of the SC text.
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
>
> Tel:  613.235.4902 <(613)%20235-4902>
>
> LinkedIn
> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>
>
> twitter.com/davidmacd
>
> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald>
>
> www.Can-Adapt.com <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
> <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html>
>
> On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> Following up on the QA checklist I sent around last week, I have done an
>> editorial pass of the SC in WCAG 2.1. The changes I made are shown in:
>>
>> https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/commit/19ac37387f3c8a82c5d3838
>> b9fa5327b28b37dab
>>
>> Please let me know if you disagree that any of these changes are
>> editorial. Most are simple things like punctuation, but in a couple places
>> I moved clauses around to improve coherence and readability.
>>
>> I added a couple things to the QA checklist as I went, and implemented
>> those in these edits:
>>
>> https://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/wiki/index.php?title=WCAG_2.1_QA_
>> Checklist&diff=8139&oldid=8109
>>
>> The change that I think might give people the most pause is Content on
>> Hover or Focus (https://w3c.github.io/wcag21/
>> guidelines/#content-on-hover-or-focus), where I changed
>>
>> "When content becomes visible when triggered by a user interface
>> component receiving keyboard focus or pointer hover, the following are
>> true, except where the visual presentation of the content is controlled
>> by the user agent and is not modified by the author:"
>>
>> to
>>
>> "When a user interface component which receives keyboard focus or
>> pointer hover causes content to become visible, the following are true:"
>>
>> and moved the exception to after the bullet list. I made this change
>> because I was finding the dependent clauses to be very hard to follow. I
>> think I didn't change meaning, but want to point this out for extra review
>> in case you disagree this change was editorial.
>>
>> I plan to make a pass through terms as well but didn't get to that today.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>
>
>