Re: Discussion on SC numbering

If we are going to have different numbers in 2.0 vs 2.1 for the same 
success criteria I would very much favour the 2.1 scheme being something 
completely different.

For example instead of 1,2,3 and 4 for Perceivable, Operable, 
Understandable and robust how about using letters (or something else)

So, for the example below, 1.4.7 in WCAG 2.0 would be P4.8 in WCAG 2.1. 
That way there would be no doubts about which version we were referring 
to, just from the success criteria "number" alone.



On 12/21/2016 9:30 AM, Laura Carlson wrote:
> Hi Alastair,
>> Laura wrote:
>>> Move IDs to the end of each SC
>> Thanks, I also have difficulty remembering the numbers. Well, past 1.1.1
>> anyway!  The 20/21 thing stumped me for a second, but I can see that having
>> the dot separator (2.1) would make it too ‘dotty’.
> Yes. Too many dots is confusing.
>> Having “ID: 1.4.4(20)” and “ID: 1.4(21)4” implies the 2.1 is replacing the
>> previous, but in which case why have both?
> Good point. I was thinking it would be forward compatible to 2.2 if
> that was ever needed. But I think you solved it with your next
> suggestion.
>> Perhaps it could be something like “ID 2.0: 1.4.7”, “ID 2.1: 1.4.8“.
> Yes. That could work.
>> Overall though, I do like the idea of de-emphasising the IDs, it makes the
>> ordering more flexible. It becomes an enhancement for experts, toolmakers
>> and legal use, without confusing the largest group who (should) use the
>> guidelines.
> Agreed. De-emphasising the numbers was my main point.
> Kindest Regards,
> Laura

Regards, James

Oracle <>
James Nurthen | Principal Engineer, Accessibility
Phone: +1 650 506 6781 <tel:+1%20650%20506%206781> | Mobile: +1 415 987 
1918 <tel:+1%20415%20987%201918> | Video: 
Oracle Corporate Architecture
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood Cty, CA 94065
Green Oracle <> Oracle is committed to 
developing practices and products that help protect the environment

Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2016 17:59:31 UTC