Re: Discussion on SC numbering

a few comments on this thread.

1)  you should get broad input before you think about dropping numbers.  Unless you alphabetize the short names — without numbers you cannot find anything.  Remember there are dozens and dozens of SCs. 
also if you don’t number them — someone else will.   I would recommend we keep numbers. 

2) If you reword the current SC 
you almost certainly will break some or many of them.  The wording on them took years and 4 public reviews to arrive at.   
The working of the current SC is the wording in all of the standards that build on this — 
and it is also the wording in all the tools and Understanding WCAG 2.0 .

3) Re overlap.  I would not worry about this.   There is already overlap among many of the current SC.  It was done deliberately for a number of reasons.  One key reason was to make things clearer and more testable. 
WCAG 2.0 is embedded in so much already — that numbering the new ones near the others will help.   They don’t need to be next to each other — (our similar ones are not)  — but under the same guideline is good. 
having your new SC lie next to what is there - will make it much clearer what is different.  what you have added or extended.   than if you rewrote the old SC. 

4) I would think that changing the wording of the WCAG 2.0 SC would promote this from being 2.1  to   3.0.     It no longer looks much like an extension or update to WCAG 2 if you are rewriting the core WCAG 2.0 SC themselves instead of just adding to them.

best 
 

Gregg C Vanderheiden
greggvan@umd.edu



> On Dec 21, 2016, at 12:30 PM, Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com> 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
> 
> -- 
> Laura L. Carlson
>