Re: Compromise on Numbering: Changing 11 AAA numbers solves the level problem

>> The compromise I see is to reduce the visibility of the numbering. We
still have them for experts, tools and laws, but perhaps make them small
and put at the end of the SC title, perhaps in the little box with the
understanding/meeting links? With that, we could then order them in a way
that makes the most sense for 2.1, which is why I voted for keeping the
level-order rather than numbering order.

Given the lack of consensus on changing AAA numbers, I think this is my
next favourite option. I've put up a mockup here.
*http://tinyurl.com/ycb8zyef <http://tinyurl.com/ycb8zyef>*



Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Mobile:  613.806.9005

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 Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:38 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> Sorry I couldn’t make the call yesterday (or tomorrow), my t’pence on the
> issue from a decision making perspective:
>
>
>
> I think it would need to be either a complete overhaul of the numbering,
> or leave the numbers as they are from 2.0. For a dot-release an overhaul is
> too much.
>
>
>
> I do think we should be making a document that is ‘optimised’ for
> newcomers rather than experts, it is simply a numbers thing, there will
> always be more people coming to the document fresh than know it very well.
> (I.e. making formatting decisions based on our usage is not valid.)
>
>
>
> The compromise I see is to reduce the visibility of the numbering. We
> still have them for experts, tools and laws, but perhaps make them small
> and put at the end of the SC title, perhaps in the little box with the
> understanding/meeting links?
>
>
>
> With that, we could then order them in a way that makes the most sense for
> 2.1, which is why I voted for keeping the level-order rather than numbering
> order.
>
>
>
> > It also breaks the promise that was made that WCAG 2.0 criteria would be
> unchanged in 2.1.
>
>
>
> I think the promise was that any conforming 2.1 site would also conform to
> 2.0, that isn’t quite the same as not changing criteria.
>
>
>
> For example, we’ve had several comments saying that the current 1.4.4 is
> defunct with the new zoom content + text adaptation critiria. Any site
> passing those new SC in 2.1 would pass 1.4.4 in 2.0. Do we still need 1.4.4?
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
>
>