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

Re: Discussion on SC numbering

From: Katie Haritos-Shea <ryladog@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:57:00 -0500
Message-ID: <CAEy-OxHkEhadia2MRjVu+cfYFqyRP0sdWHd_G_gRpptBQEmdxg@mail.gmail.com>
To: CAE-Vanderhe <greggvan@umd.edu>
Cc: AlastairCampbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
I have to agree that changing the numbering structure doesn't seem like a
good idea for a dot release.

Katie Haritos-Shea
703-371-5545

On Dec 22, 2016 8:23 PM, "Gregg C Vanderheiden" <greggvan@umd.edu> wrote:

> thanks Alistair
>
> RE 3 — you are right that if something was covered in one SC we did not
> create a second one that covered it too.
>
> What I was referring to though — was that we ALSO have some that purposely
> overlap.   Like    Don’t do this except — and  Don’t do this ever  (at two
> different levels).      We have a number of places where we have multiple
> SC that overlap — with SC at different levels increasing the requirement.
>
> Yes - when changing the level it would be the same wording at another
> level.   Before changing the level though — I think you should check with
> the old WCAG members to see why it wasnt already at a higher level.   We
> had LOTS of SC that we wanted to have at a higher level but couldnt for on
> reason or another.
>
>
> my best
>
>
> Gregg C Vanderheiden
> greggvan@umd.edu
>
>
>
> > On Dec 22, 2016, at 7:39 PM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > -Alastair
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 23 December 2016 01:57:31 UTC

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