Re: Discussion on SC numbering

> on first glace those numbers such as P1.4.A.6 look pretty ugly and intimidating compared to 1.2.3



I agree when looked at in isolation, but I would find mis-ordered SCs worse.



My order of preference would be:

1.       No IDs shown.

2.       New modular numbering shown but with less emphasis (like Laura’s example)

3.       A re-numbering of the current system (with less emphasis).

4.       Additions-only to the current system, but with the SCs re-ordered so the IDs are not in order.



But if we put it to a public survey I’d want to include 1, 2 and 4.



A lot of my reasoning comes from when I run training for designers, developers and managers. One of the questions I ask in the intro is a show of hands for how many people have read WCAG 2.0 (with screenshot showing to remind them). Generally, it is 1-4 people out of 10, probably averaging 2 (20%).



I then ask them to keep their hand up if they have ‘finished’ the document. It is unusual for any hands to stay up, and if they do you’ve found someone who has done testing as part of their job.



However, a lot of the concepts from WCAG are pretty well known, although for any individual it tends to be quite patchy. It is the guidelines & SCs that we need to be very careful with, the numbering only matters to people who have to deal with it professionally such as tool makers. If you are dealing with it professionally,

From what Wilco said, the numbering isn’t a huge issue as they’d have to do a new version of rules for 2.1 anyway, in the same way they did transitioning from 1.0 to 2.0. Tools will have to be able to run a 2.0 test for a while, as it is still a relevant standard for many clients. (Please correct me if wrong Wilco!)



So that is a long way of saying that I would prioritise new people reading WCAG 2.1 over people who might rely on numbering or the order of 2.0.



Cheers,



-Alastair