- From: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 11:34:31 -0500
- To: "'Alastair Campbell'" <acampbell@nomensa.com>
- Cc: "'WCAG'" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <3f6301d25ba8$1bb49ae0$531dd0a0$@gmail.com>
Alistair, I get your point. Hmmmm… The problem is I *thought* we were not going to change the existing SC, and that this was clearly indicated to the TFs when proposing new SC….:-( Boy this is one reason it would have been nice to have *clearly defined* as a requirement (and again, I thought it was). Add to the lessons-learned department…. To be backwards compatible it looks as if the new content they suggest for an existing SC will have to became a new SC related just to the specific changes. This would sort of go along with the idea that each new SC should have - and then test – very distinct criteria. * 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 NOTE: The content of this email should be construed to always be an expression of my own personal independent opinion, unless I identify that I am speaking on behalf of Knowbility, as their AC Rep at the W3C - and - that my personal email never expresses the opinion of my employer, Deque Systems. From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 10:59 AM To: Katie Haritos-Shea GMAIL <ryladog@gmail.com> Cc: 'WCAG' <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Subject: Re: Discussion on SC numbering > We should not touch current SC. If there is slight overlap with SC, so be it….:-) Hi Katie, That isn’t the situation for many new SCs, the impact of that approach is that either: - None of the ‘increased’ requirements can make it through to 2.1 (including many from COGA), or - We will have duplicate (raised level) or severely overlapping SCs. For example (from a quick skim, there are probably more): https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/56 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/51 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/40 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/33 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/32 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/29 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/22 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/13 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/7 https://github.com/w3c/wcag21/issues/77 All of those will either overlap *a lot*, or they can’t go into 2.1. NB: I had raised this previously [1], but it wasn’t really the time to discuss it as the SCs weren’t close enough. Now they are. What I’m saying is that if a new SC is “Good” (meets the SC requirements apart from overlap), then we tackle each case, analyse the understanding, techniques & failures docs, and if it can be done in a backwards compatible way, update the existing SC. Cheers, -Alastair 1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/0018.html
Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2016 16:35:07 UTC