RE: Discussion on SC numbering


That was a lot of work...:-)

For SC numbering, personally, I am not a fan of:
- changing existing (no way), 
- removing (no way), or,
- moving the positions of SC numbering  (maybe)

....but that is just me

​​​​​* katie *
Katie Haritos-Shea 
Principal ICT Accessibility Architect (WCAG/Section 508/ADA/AODA)
Cell: 703-371-5545 | | Oakton, VA | LinkedIn Profile | Office: 703-371-5545 | @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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Laura Carlson [] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 11:28 AM
To: Alastair Campbell <>
Cc: WCAG <>
Subject: Re: Discussion on SC numbering

Hi all,

Thank you Alastair!

I like the idea of removing the numbers as they can be confusing and an obstacle for people learning WCAG. At times I still get SC numbers mixed up. Plain language is much easier and one less thing to learn.

But a unique identifier is useful for both backwards compatibility as Andrew pointed out and can be handy for referencing as Patrick pointed out.

Here is an idea for retaining numbering but de-emphasizing it. And just maybe making it a bit more user friendly. People will be able to tell 2.0 SC from 2.1 SCs.

* Move IDs to the end of each SC.
* WCAG 2.1 SCs are inserted topically where they make the most sense.
* WCAG 2.0 numbers are unchanged but add the WCAG version (20) suffix, for example ID: 1.4.1(20)
* WCAG 2.1 numbers have the main guideline number, the WCAG version in parentheses (21), and a new ID#, for example ID: 1.4(21)1

A quick mock-up of how it might work is at:

Kindest Regards,
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2016 16:41:23 UTC