Re: Coming to a decision on 2.2

Hi everyone,

I opened up my WCAG folder this morning and found this huge thread, to summarise my thoughts on the naming convention / document process:

  *   I agree with John’s wish for a living doc, but appreciate Katie’s point that it doesn’t work for some major consumers of WCAG.
  *   I agree that saying “this extra SC for low vision users” doesn’t stand much chance of being used in practice if it isn’t part of the main WCAG document.
  *   Given the constraints, I think it best if extra SC are documented by task forces, tested by the wider community, scrutinised for clashes across extensions, and then rolled into WCAG as a major update in the medium term (perhaps for the next chartering?).
  *   It would be very useful to reference WCAG 2.0 SC from the extensions, but I’m wary of 1.3.1-LV or similar. If some reference WCAG 2 and some don’t, how would the non-WCAG ones be numbered? Perhaps each SC from a task force should have it’s own numbering with a clear means of referencing the original.

On the text for 2.2, perhaps it would be best to drop the concept of modifying altogether?

In all the examples I’ve seen so far, a new SC from a task force would extend or add to WCAG2. If it cannot undermine the original SC, then how can it modify it? It isn’t modifying it, it is adding or extending it… just drop the last bullet point.

Is there an example where a new SC could modify an original one without undermining it? An example where it couldn’t just be treated as adding or extending?

-Alastair

--

Alastair Campbell

www.nomensa.com
follow us: @we_are_nomensa or me: @alastc