Re: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1

Count me in...

Here's a few thoughts as we prepare to discuss it.

- Any new Success Criterion that is under a *NEW* Guideline can have the
regular 3 level number without colliding with another SC number . (This is
the case with most of the proposed mobile SCs, i.e., Pointer 2.5.1))

- Guidelines 1.1, 1.3 and 4.1 only have Level A SCs so any new SCs under
them can keep the 3 number format without colliding with anything ... just
add x.y.z numbering after the last existing SCs at the desired level.

- The real issue of collision is for new A or AA SCs under existing
Guidelines that have AA of AAA already there. That is
   1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4.

Any new Success Criteria that have the x.x.x schema under these Guidelines
would have to go at the end. So a new AA SC would end up after an existing
AAA in the number Guideline (i.e. a new COGA AA under GL "2.2 Enough time"
would be 2.2.6, would have to follow the 2.2.5 Re-authentication AAA).

We would have to address that issue something like:

-Giving it a prefix, or a suffix,
- Simply presenting them out of order and grouped by Level
- Or creating a new guideline for these SCs.

For SC's that modify an existing SC then perhaps adding a 4th level x.x.x.x
would be necessary. But the 4th level would not be appropriate for anything
else because it would cause the NEW SC to be a sub of an existing SC.


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 Sun, Jun 26, 2016 at 5:47 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com]
> *Sent:* Sunday, June 26, 2016 4:32 PM
>
> I would be interested in this activity. I have some thoughts on this
> already (I know, shocking huh?), but I'm also interested to hear other's
> ideas as well.
>
> *[Jason] A solution that might work would be to add a prefix letter (e.g.,
> “x”) to the number of every modified or promoted success criterion. This
> would clearly distinguish version 2.1 from version 2.0 success criteria for
> authors, evaluation tools and in other contexts.*
>
> *I think it should be decided, case by case, whether to rewrite and expand
> the scope of an existing guideline or success criterion, or whether to
> introduce a new one. Readability for users of version 2.1 would have
> priority, in my mind, over backward compatibility. Once people move to the
> new version, the older version becomes much less relevant to most of their
> work.*
>
> ------------------------------
>
> This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or
> confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom
> it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail
> in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or
> take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete
> it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited.
>
> Thank you for your compliance.
> ------------------------------
>