Re: Numbering WCAG 2.1

I'm not sure I understand Denis...

Alastair's proposal doesn't change any number ... What are "all the impacts
it would have in our industry."

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 29, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Denis Boudreau (Deque) <
denis.boudreau@deque.com> wrote:

> Hello David,
>
> I'd seen/hear about it before, and quite frankly, I'm not exactly a fan of
> the idea.
> With all due respect, I personally strongly feel that this is not a
> responsible approach, given all the impacts it would have in our industry.
>
>
> /Denis
>
> --
> Denis Boudreau,
> Principal accessibility consultant & trainer
> Deque Systems, Inc.
> Cell: +1-514-730-9168 <(514)%20730-9168>
> Email: denis.boudreau@deque.com
>
> Keep in touch: @dboudreau <http://www.twitter.com/dboudreau>
>
> On 2017-09-29 10:11:47 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Hi Denis
>
> What are your thought on deemphasis on SC numbers like this?
> https://alastairc.ac/tests/wcag21-examples/wcag21-model7.html
>
>
> 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 Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Denis Boudreau (Deque) <
> denis.boudreau@deque.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm sure others have mentioned it already, but the impact of changing the
>> numbering system would be huge for anyone building or maintaining an
>> accessibility tool out there. Whether it's an assessment tool for
>> accessibility, or any kind of homemade spreadsheet to keep up with a
>> testing methodology for that matter. Same holds true for any documentation
>> people may have built for themselves, that is structured according to SC
>> that have been around for almost 10 years (if we account for the fact that
>> these SC did not come out of thin air in December of 2008).
>>
>> Changing the number system is easy. Adapting to these changes around the
>> world is not. The impacts of changing this now, especially when we might
>> just be a few years away from a totally different set of guidelines
>> (Silver) seems like a terrible idea to me.
>>
>>
>>
>> /Denis
>>
>> --
>> Denis Boudreau,
>> Principal accessibility consultant & trainer
>> Deque Systems, Inc.
>> Cell: +1-514-730-9168 <(514)%20730-9168>
>> Email: denis.boudreau@deque.com
>>
>> Keep in touch: @dboudreau <http://www.twitter.com/dboudreau>
>>
>> On 2017-09-29 9:22:15 AM, Repsher, Stephen J <
>> stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don’t want to speak for Kim, but from what I understand of legal
>> numbering and what was discussed rather quickly on previous calls,
>> stressing the word “honor” helps the logic.  For example, just adding a 0
>> to all existing numbers allows 9 SC to be inserted between any 2, and would
>> have very minimal disruption:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1.3.10 Info and Relationships
>>
>> à 1.3.15 New 2.1 Criterion
>>
>> 1.3.20 Meaningful Sequence
>>
>>
>>
>> That’s just one technique of many.
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, September 29, 2017 4:22 AM
>> *To:* kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com
>> *Cc:* w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
>> *Subject:* RE: Numbering WCAG 2.1
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi Kim,
>>
>>
>>
>> I’m a bit confused, the logical result of:
>>
>> > keep the numbers sequential,
>>
>> > levels together, and
>>
>> > honor (keep) the WCAG 2.0 numbers.
>>
>>
>>
>> would be that we cannot add new SCs at A or AA, as either numbers would
>> be out of sequence, or the levels would be.
>>
>>
>>
>> Assuming we do add new SCs above AAA, we either have to re-order or
>> re-number in some way, am I missing something?
>>
>>
>>
>> My suggestion (for later) was that we de-emphasise the numbers and then
>> allow them to be out of order, so that the levels are kept together.
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards,
>>
>>
>>
>> -Alastair
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>> www.nomensa.com / @alastc
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>