Re: numbering proposal

On Friday, March 14, 2003, at 01:48  PM, Wendy A Chisholm wrote:
> If each guideline was identified by a letter (e.g., "N" for 
> "Navigable") rather than a number (3) and if each conformance letter 
> was identified by a letter (M for Minimum, S for Second Level, T for 
> Third Level), then each success criterion could have a unique 
> identifier (e.g., N3M1, N3M2, N3S1).

Whether or not this is a good idea for English-speakers, I think this 
would be a nightmare for internationalization. For one thing, it's very 
unlikely that in all languages, the five best translations of 
Perceivable, Operable, etc., would all start with different letters. 
The same goes for Minimum, Second and Third. The semantics would lose 
all meaning when localized.

I don't know that success criteria numbering is a problem that exists 
outside of the WCAG WG; therefore, I propose that any solution to this 
problem should be handled within the WG, without passing it on to the 
end users of the document. If we want to use this terminology to 
streamline discussion on conference calls or in email, then we can just 
as easily adopt it as shorthand without changing the document itself. 
(Or perhaps something more intuitive to participants, like G3.2-AAA-1.)

> Pros and Cons:
>   - Is not consistent with WCAG 1.0, ATAG 1.0, or UAAG 1.0
>     numbering schemes.

As AUWG contact, this represents a problem for me, since our document's 
conformance scheme depends on that of WCAG, and I'm concerned this 
would confuse tool vendors.

-
m

Received on Friday, 14 March 2003 18:03:13 UTC