Re: Numbering WCAG 2.1

This is also my feeling... I think we may want to revisit the idea of
ordering within levels levels and deemphasizing numbers and moving them to
the right, taking into account the trade-offs between usability on one hand
and extra admin to administer the numbers manually if we don't put them in
the numbered order.

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 Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 9:32 AM, Repsher, Stephen J <
stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> wrote:

> 0
>
> I share the views expressed by Alastair, Laura, Mike G., Jason, and
> others, and feel the group has really failed to compromise here despite
> numerous proposals.  I’m not objecting simply because it is clear important
> work will be blocked by continuing the debate.
>
>
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> *From:* Michael Gower [mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 27, 2017 1:25 PM
> *To:* Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> *Cc:* Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: Numbering WCAG 2.1
>
>
>
> +0
> Here's a an example of some of the confusion Alastair is concerned about...
>
> I took on writing the SC for 2.2.7 *Interruptions (Minimum)*. Since the
> Understanding doc does not contain the SC wording, I brought up the
> complete 2.1 list to review it. I came across 2.2.4 *Interruptions *and
> started working.
>
> I spent several hours editing the Understanding doc for 2.2.7 based on the
> SC wording for 2.2.4. Yeah, knuckleheaded I know, but the fact is this
> happened primarily because I just went through the list sequentially, came
> across the word "Interruptions" and stopped.
>
> It's not tough to envision a situation where a similar experience will
> happen for others on this or other similarly worded SCs of different
> levels, which are now out of sequence. It's also not tough to imagine folks
> that are used to the fact 2.0 escalates from A to AA to AAA inside each
> section missing the new As and AAs that come after them -- or to be
> confused by the fact the number is non-sequential.
>
> I can live with what's been proposed, but I do think it is going to cause
> more confusion than is anticipated by some.
>
> Michael Gower
> IBM Accessibility
> Research
>
> 1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1803+Douglas+Street,+Victoria,+BC+%C2%A0V8T+5C3&entry=gmail&source=g>
>  V8T 5C3
> <https://maps.google.com/?q=1803+Douglas+Street,+Victoria,+BC+%C2%A0V8T+5C3&entry=gmail&source=g>
> gowerm@ca.ibm.com
> voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034
>
>
>
> From:        Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> To:        Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> Cc:        WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> Date:        2017-09-27 09:35 AM
> Subject:        Re: Numbering WCAG 2.1
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> +0
>
> I won’t object, but I think we may need to re-think this later.
>
> Particularly where Michael said:
> > “But in discussion, the importance of keeping conformance levels in a
> block seemed not to be too high.“
>
> I have tried to make that point, I think that is important for
> understand-ability and we are currently prioritising expert & tool use over
> people who are not familiar with WCAG (which is the biggest group).
>
> However, not many others are making that point so I won’t keep arguing
> about it.
>
> I suspect we will get comments from the public about the ordering being
> confusing later in the process so the option I’d like to keep open is the
> de-emphasising the numbers, which would enable us to be more flexible about
> the order whilst keeping the proposed numbering.
>
> I put together a small example of what that could look like here:
> https://alastairc.ac/tests/wcag21-examples/wcag21-model7.html
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__alastairc.ac_tests_wcag21-2Dexamples_wcag21-2Dmodel7.html&d=DwMGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc&m=Y2l4hxYmtNsVPHYE4pjLN0oZITO4la-23bx7aH6ptCw&s=hmF6w6wHTCQ9dtws0wjq71JNFymWiLF8a9TEN2QvJ5U&e=>
>
> I can’t spend any longer on it so there’s just two SC in there, but the
> idea is the number is added to the right-hand links box, and removed from
> the start of the SC short-name. Everything else is the same, although the
> HTML structure would need a bit more finessing.
>
> That would enable us to slot in new SC in the level-order without it
> looking too odd, so new level-A SC would go after the 2.0 level-A SC, and
> so on.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -Alastair
>
>
>
> *From: *Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
> * Date: *Tuesday, 26 September 2017 at 22:48
> * To: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> * Subject: *CFC: Numbering WCAG 2.1
> * Resent-From: *WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
> * Resent-Date: *Tuesday, 26 September 2017 at 22:47
>
> Call For Consensus — ends Thursday September 28th at 5:45pm Boston time.
>
> The Working Group has discussed the issue of how or whether to renumber
> WCAG 2.1 SC over the past few weeks. On the call today the group discussed
> a proposal detailed by Michael Cooper (https://lists.w3.org/
> Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017JulSep/1097.html
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.w3.org_Archives_Public_w3c-2Dwai-2Dgl_2017JulSep_1097.html&d=DwMGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc&m=Y2l4hxYmtNsVPHYE4pjLN0oZITO4la-23bx7aH6ptCw&s=R0BqdklFYwmOydELZWiizWXRVHJxy1NJW3QhtOuYYZo&e=>)
> and the group recognized that no solution was optimal, but that everyone
> could live with this solution and as a result agreed to this proposal.
>
> Call minutes: https://www.w3.org/2017/09/26-ag-minutes.html#item02
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.w3.org_2017_09_26-2Dag-2Dminutes.html-23item02&d=DwMGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc&m=Y2l4hxYmtNsVPHYE4pjLN0oZITO4la-23bx7aH6ptCw&s=vI3uA3s6xfJ6ZCZy0KBwOhh2mpYLI6gzjZbo8c9D1zQ&e=>
>
> If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not
> been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not
> being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before
> the CfC deadline.
>
> Thanks,
> AWK
>
> Andrew Kirkpatrick
> Group Product Manager, Accessibility
> Adobe
>
> akirkpat@adobe.com
> http://twitter.com/awkawk
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_awkawk&d=DwMGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc&m=Y2l4hxYmtNsVPHYE4pjLN0oZITO4la-23bx7aH6ptCw&s=jEn0ZaTgSHuvD1vUywwin-38-B1k4resoVxCUGWJvGM&e=>
>
>