W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > October to December 2016

Re: Discussion on SC numbering

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2016 19:11:36 +0000
To: James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com>, "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <07C2305D-93E5-4F01-98AB-FA190BF773AA@adobe.com>
If we are going to do any renumbering, we need to make sure that we know what we would do if we were to have a WCAG 2.2 or else we will just be in the same situation again (possibly also true for Silver)
Thanks,
AWK

Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Standards and Accessibility
Adobe

akirkpat@adobe.com
http://twitter.com/awkawk


From: James Nurthen <james.nurthen@oracle.com<mailto:james.nurthen@oracle.com>>
Organization: Oracle Corporation
Date: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 12:58
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Discussion on SC numbering
Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Resent-Date: Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 12:59


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.


Regards,

james

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]<http://www.oracle.com>
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: james.nurthen@oracle.com<sip:james.nurthen@oracle.com>
Oracle Corporate Architecture
500 Oracle Parkway | Redwood Cty, CA 94065
[Green              Oracle]<http://www.oracle.com/commitment>Oracle is committed to developing practices and products that help protect the environment

oracle_sig_logo.gif
(image/gif attachment: oracle_sig_logo.gif)

green-for-email-sig_0.gif
(image/gif attachment: green-for-email-sig_0.gif)

Received on Wednesday, 21 December 2016 19:12:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:07 UTC