RE: Coming to a decision on 2.2

+1 (again).

I strongly feel that adding new SC, as opposed to making edits to existing SC is the right way forward, even if (in practice) a new SC modifies/strengthens an existing SC. We’ve done that already (as I noted previously).

 

Additionally, I worry about speaking in terms of WCAG 2.0 + [user group] style conformance reporting, as once we start getting new success criteria from different Task Forces this will spin into a confusing and onerous task of reporting conformance. While I recognize that the current Charter does not allow for any other means of reporting the addition of new Success Criteria (such as perhaps a WCAG 2.1), I’ll stick my neck out and say that we collectively need to address this short-coming sooner rather than later.

 

JF

 

From: Gregg Vanderheiden RTF [mailto:gregg@raisingthefloor.org] 
Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 12:00 PM
To: Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com>
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>; Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>; John Foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>; David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>; Jason J White <jjwhite@ets.org>; GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2

 

should not the  statement, "Extension specifications are expected to
offer modifications to existing WCAG 2.0 success criteria  ..." be
worded differently to convey what is intended?

 

Interesting.

 

You might have put your finger on it. 

 

when I read 

"Extension specifications are expected to offer modifications to existing WCAG 2.0 success criteria  ..." be
worded differently to convey what is intended?

 

 

I read it as   “offer modifications to the existing set of WCAG 2.0 success criteria” meaning that it would extend the set — not edit the SC.

 

 

I think that editing the SC or re-using those number will create great confusion.

 

instead I suggest that new number be used - corresponding to the particular extension

 

SC XM-1      (for example for the first on in the Mobile extension) 

 

or  

 

SC XM-3.1.7   (for mobile — where 3.1.6  is the last SC number in 3.1 series   

 

If it is an extension of a particular SC it could say 

 

 SC XM-3.1.7 (which extends  SC 3.1.3)    


gregg 

 

On Feb 22, 2016, at 8:36 AM, Sailesh Panchang <sailesh.panchang@deque.com <mailto:sailesh.panchang@deque.com> > wrote:

 

1. I understand that "The extension is not changing the SC in WCAG
2.0, it is modifying the SC in the context of the extension", then
should not the  statement, "Extension specifications are expected to
offer modifications to existing WCAG 2.0 success criteria  ..." be
worded differently to convey what is intended?
2. Yes, "All of the details regarding numbering and association with
the techniques are details that do need to be figured out", but this
extension requirements doc should explicitly state that the SCs  in an
extension will not duplicate  an SC# from the WCAG 2.0.
Else, an SC in the extension that has  a number identical to a WCAG
2.0 SC will surely create confusion  as Greg pointed out in his first
email especially with regard to documentation for techniques and
understanding.
It may not be very problematic for some changes  e.g. SC 1.4.3 in the
extension say, only changes the ratio from 4.5:1 to 5:1 to make it
stronger.
But consider what will happen, if say, SC 3.3.2 in the extension
begins with "Labels and instructions" instead of "Labels or
instructions".

I believe the above should be addressed, then the statement suggested
by David will absolutely fit in and not create room for any confusion.

Thanks,
Sailesh Panchang