Re: Discussion on SC numbering

It reminds me of the types of problems we encounter when creating a chart
of accounts in book keeping.

There will be new accounts added over the years so the accountant tends to
put space between the numbers... Assets are 1010, 1020,1030 etc... and then
a new account might go into 1025, which gives room for further additions at
21-24.

In this case each dot release would add more SCs

One concern is that I think if we renumber current SCs it may be perceived
as a totally new thing, not a DOT release, but I'm willing to let the
stakeholders weigh in on that.

I have to say, on first glace those numbers such as P1.4.A.6 look pretty
ugly and intimidating compared to 1.2.3, but again I'm willing to let the
public weigh in and tell us what they think.

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 Thu, Dec 22, 2016 at 4:37 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
wrote:

> James wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
>
>
> Andrew wrote:
>
> > 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
>
>
>
> The most flexible would be to not have IDs, but if we do then I like
> James’ idea and take Andrew’s point.
>
>
>
> How about something modular such as: letter for principle, number for
> guideline, letters for level, number for SC.
>
>
>
> So from this example https://alastairc.ac/tests/
> wcag21-examples/wcag21-model3.html you’d have:
>
> P1.4 A.1 Use of color
>
> P1.4 A.2 Audio control
>
> P1.4 A.3 Reflow to single column
>
> P1.4 AA.1 Contrast (Minimum)
>
> P1.4 AA.2 Graphics contrast
>
> P1.4 AA.3 Interactive element contrast
>
> P1.4 AA.4 Resize text
>
> P1.4 AA.5 Resize Content
>
> P1.4 AA.5 Images of text
>
> P1.4 AA.6 Visual presentation
>
> P1.4 AAA.1 Contrast (Enhanced)
>
> Etc.
>
>
>
> That allows for new SCs to be added later in the same guideline at the
> same level quite easily.
>
>
>
> I can’t see any way of allowing new SCs to be inserted within a level,
> e.g. a new one after Graphics contrast, unless we spaced out the IDs like
> this:
>
> P1.4 AA.20 Graphics contrast
>
> P1.4 AA.30 Interactive element contrast
>
>
>
> Then you could have a P1.4 AA.25 in WCAG 2.2. But I’m not advocating that,
> I think being able to append at each level is good enough and clearer.
>
>
>
> I take David’s point about this type of thing needing a wider review, but
> I would want to present 2 or 3 fully thought-through solutions for a public
> survey such as:
>
> -          The best update to the current systems (according the WG),
> model 3 perhaps?
>
> -          No numbers.
>
> -          This new modular approach (or the WGs preferred ‘new’ approach
> to numbers if this isn’t it).
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
> -Alastair
>