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

Re: Discussion on SC numbering

From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 00:39:02 +0000
To: Gregg C Vanderheiden <greggvan@umd.edu>, GLWAI Guidelines WG org <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <HE1PR0901MB14669FA8A817C580CB1C12E7B9950@HE1PR0901MB1466.eurprd09.prod.outlook.com>
> 1)  you should get broad input before you think about dropping numbers.

I agree. I am suggesting it will help to at least de-emphasise the numbers, but I'd like to test the impact before committing to that approach.

I'm also curious if anyone knows of another guidelines-type standard that has added a significant number of requirements in a later version, how did they handle numbering or re-wording of previous requirements?

> 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.

I'm not sure I understand/agree with this. When testing websites, people new to WCAG testing tend to fail the same thing under multiple SCs, but with our experienced testers we find that real overlap is actually rare.

That level of coherence is something I really appreciate in WCAG 2.0, and something I'd like to maintain.

Did you look at the examples linked previously? In order to increase the requirements for some things they are very close to duplicates but with different levels or minor modifications. 

In the case of Resize content (issue 77), we are increasing the requirement (400%) but also trying to account for the differences in mobile devices. It does appear odd to keep 'text resize' in it's current form, although that just about works.

Another case where I'd like to see change is the current "Contrast (Minimum)". Now that we are adding "Graphics contrast", could we call the current one "Text contrast"? That would actually line up with the SC content better and reduce apparent overlap.

> you almost certainly will break some or many of them.  The wording on them took years and 4 public reviews to arrive at.

I think that not tackling the overlap will cause a need for more public reviews due to feedback about that overlap & resulting confusion.

In cases where we are increasing the requirements, I think we can use the current understanding docs with fairly minor modifications to account for the changes, and some additional techniques.

> *   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.

I agree (although it makes the numbering harder to deal with), but there are some cases (especially for COGA) where they are very similar to the current ones but moved up a level. 


Received on Friday, 23 December 2016 00:39:34 UTC

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