Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2

John and Leonie,

Thanks for the comments.  First off, nothing with regard to numbering of added or modified success criteria has been determined.  My suggestion from the earlier email should be regarded as just one idea, so don’t put too much stock into it.

The combination of multiple extensions does have the potential to get messy, and that is a concern.  What if, for example, the LVTF seeks to modify 1.3.1 and then a few months later the COGA TF wants to do the same? Can a person easily conform to WCAG 2.0+ a low vision extension and also to a COGA extension?  Some of this will need to be managed by the Working Group to ensure that the SC numbers and details are not conflicting but we don’t know the exact form that the documents will take at this point, which is why we are starting from the broad requirements for extensions.

The concern that you are raising about how extensions all fit together is one of the topics from the chartering discussion, and it is valid, but we are pursuing the now-chartered extension route as well as working to think about what happens down the road.

Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk

http://blogs.adobe.com/accessibility


From: John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com<mailto:john.foliot@deque.com>>
Date: Monday, February 22, 2016 at 12:18
To: "tink@tink.uk<mailto:tink@tink.uk>" <tink@tink.uk<mailto:tink@tink.uk>>, 'Joshue O Connor' <josh@interaccess.ie<mailto:josh@interaccess.ie>>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2

I have a long and ramble-y JF email in my Drafts folder which explains my concerns around this in more detail, but in summary I see the current thinking around something like ‘SC 1.4.3-LV’ versus ‘SC 1.4.3-Mobile’, versus ‘SC 1.4.3-COGA’ (for example) as being quite onerous to manage, especially for entities that seek to conform to more than one user-group’s needs. I also find that using this kind of pattern (SC #.#.# - [affected user group]) as being divisive and fosters a “ghettoization” of both WCAG and the individual Success Criteria, as this is more of a “forking” of WCAG rather than building upon existing Success Criteria that would benefit all users.