Re: Numbering Scheme for WCAG 2.1

the SCs in the example are named "3.1.7 New COGA SC (AA)" just to show that
they will come from somewhere. Its just a place marker. The final will just
be the wording of the SC without the "new COGA part"

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 Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 7:52 PM, White, Jason J <jjwhite@ets.org> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* John Foliot [mailto:john.foliot@deque.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, July 18, 2016 6:49 PM
> *To:* WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
>
> One item that did not receive a lot of discussion, but has surfaced on
> some of the Task Force lists, is what to do with existing Success Criteria
> that will need to be modified in some fashion in WCAG 2.1. There are
> concerns over WCAG 2.1 being seen as “too big”, as well as a concern over
> ‘repeating’ requirements based upon conditional statements (see the thread
> at the Mobile TF list).
>
> *[Jason] I suggest modifying the existing criterion and adding a letter
> (prefix or suffix) to distinguish it from the original would be unambiguous
> without adding unnecessary SCs.*
>
>
>
> Based upon all of this, and pending further discussion on Tuesday’s WCAG
> call, I would like to propose the following model as the one that appeared
> to draw the most support (Model #2), with modification s based upon the
> “legislation” model feedback.
>    (Please note that the use of * (*new) *in this email is only to
> address the visual formatting used in this email in some instances, but
> would not be part of the numbering scheme)
>
>
>
> 3.1 Readable
>
>   3.1.1 Language of Page A
>
>   3.1.2 Language of Parts AA
>
>   3.1.3 Unusual Words AAA
>
>   3.1.4 Abbreviations AAA
>
>   3.1.5 Reading Level AAA
>
>   3.1.6 Pronunciation AAA
>
> *  3.1.7 New COGA AA (*new)*
>
> *  3.1.8 New Mobile A (*new)*
>
> *  3.1.9 New COGA AA (*new)*
>
>
>
> *[Jason] Is 3.1.7 really meant to be AA, or is it level A instead?*
>
> *Also, there’s an implication here that the criteria are tied to the Task
> Forces, whereas in fact I suspect many of them will simultaneously address
> needs arising from multiple sources, including Task Forces.*
>
> Plus…
>
>    1.2.2 Captions (Prerecorded): Captions are provided for all prerecorded
> audio ... (Level A)
>
>    1.2.3 Audio Description or Media Alternative (Prerecorded): ... (Level
> A)
>
> *        1.2.3A Some new SC that is related to this concept, but distinct
> (Level AA) (*new)*
>
> *        1.2.3B Another new SC that is related but distinct (Level AA)
> (*new)*
>
>    1.2.4 Captions (Live): Captions are provided for all live audio content
> ... (Level AA)
>
>
>
> …with the suggestion that this type of numbering scheme would be extremely
> useful for the Mobile work, where many of the existing Success Criteria are
> close, but not quite enough for mobile requirements.
>
>
>
> *[Jason] Why not just modify the existing SC, then change the number as
> suggested above?*
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> 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.
> ------------------------------
>