RE: Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1

+1 

 

​​​​​

 

 

 

* katie *

 

Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)

 

Cell: 703-371-5545 |  <mailto:ryladog@gmail.com> ryladog@gmail.com | Oakton, VA |  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/katieharitosshea/> LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 |  <https://twitter.com/Ryladog> @ryladog

 

From: David MacDonald [mailto:david100@sympatico.ca] 
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:23 AM
To: josh@interaccess.ie
Cc: Eric Eggert <ee@w3.org>; John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>; White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Help needed with numbering success criteria for WCAG 2.1

 

Hi John and Eric

 

I think you've both found preference in the simple solution which also appeals to me:

 

Stick with x.x.x numbering scheme, its perfect for SCs under new guidelines, and new SCs under 1.1, 1.3 and 4.1. 

It may be that most of the new SCs will fit in these scenarios.

 

For new SCs  under Guidelines 1.2, 1.4, 2.1, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, 3.4 we can put a x.x.x at the end of the existing SCs. 

 

John is right that most bug tracking systems don't put SCs in order, and most audits don't evaluate for AAA. So functionally, in reports the 3 letter scheme will cause little disruption. We can have two views in the How To Meet (1) SCs in order of number (2) SCs in order of level.

 

This way we keep our 3 letter schema, unless a new SC is truly a sub of another SC which could have a 4 letter schema x.x.x.x




Cheers,
David MacDonald

 

CanAdapt Solutions Inc.

Tel:  613.235.4902

LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100>  


twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd> 

 <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> GitHub

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 Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 8:06 AM, josh@interaccess.ie <mailto:josh@interaccess.ie>  <josh@interaccess.ie <mailto:josh@interaccess.ie> > wrote:

 

------ Original Message ------

From: "Eric Eggert" <ee@w3.org <mailto:ee@w3.org> >

[...]

David wrote:

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

Serious question: does anyone see this as a problem?

[Chair hat off]

Yes, I do. [...]

The question is what happens when a AA criterion is “promoted” to be an A criterion, for example:

What if any given SC was promoted, it is renumerated at the end? Or Added on (with a alphabetic prefix/suffix)? This would be simpler but have the disadvantage of no longer being 'recognisable' as related to its previous position. This brings the question of to what degree we have to maintain previous relationships/mappings of SCs to their 'former selves'?

 

It may be a brave new world (whether we like it or not).

 

x.1.1 – A
x.1.2 – A
x.1.3 – AA
x.1.4 – AA
x.1.5 – AA
x.1.6 – AAA

[...]

x.1.1 – A
x.1.2 – A
x.1.3 – AA
x.1.4 – A
x.1.5 – AA
x.1.6 – AAA

I find everything but the latter very confusing, at least for the 2.x WCAG branch, we’re of course free to adopt a different counting technique for 3.0.

It sure is. I like (or think it is realistic to be more accurate) to try:

 

x.1.1 – A

x.1.1.x – A
x.1.2 – A

x.1.2.x – A
x.1.3 – AA

x.1.3.x – AA

Where x.1.1.x – A, x.1.2.x – A, x.1.3.x – AA are new SCs.

 

OOTTMH - I'd almost consider using the letter/prefix or suffix suggestion almost as a preferred 'namespaced' type solution that would more easily call out what was new, within the SC schema and may not interfere with current automated evaluation methods too much.

I don’t know how the problem would be addressed by a prefix/suffix…

Reformulating

[...]

This makes somewhat sense and would be consistent, but it would also make the numbering much more complicated.

Could be wrong (I could be right) - happy to hear either way.

+1 – I think it is a very complicated issue (to do right and somewhat “user”friendly).

Eric

 

I think you just earned a place on the 'SC team' any interest in working with John/David etc? Your considered input would be very helpful!

 

Thanks

 

Josh