Re: Possible addition to the Numbering and Updating debate?

Michael Gower wrote:

> What if we made all existing 2.0 AA criteria into level A in 2.1 and introduced new criteria at AA and AAA levels?

Firstly, I suspect that’s probably something we’d need to put off until Silver. But taking it as a thought experiment for now:

The effect of A/AA/AAA in practice (in my UK based experience) is that people aim for AA, and some organisations look at AAA and cherry pick particular SCs that might be more relevant for their audience.

If we made that kind of change, why not have just two levels? Everything currently at A/AA becomes the new ‘required’ level, and the AAAs become the ‘advisory’ level. I’d suggest completely moving away from the A/AA nomenclature to something new,

> As was made pretty clear in our discussions, the numbers are crucial for cross-referencing and reporting on compliance.

I’m not convinced of that. The people that really use the numbers are toolmakers and law makers, who reference a specific version and feedback so far has been fairly neutral on numbering updates (I’m thinking back to Wilco and Andrew Arch’s feedback).

Most of the designers & developers I meet & train haven’t read WCAG yet, know some of the SCs by osmosis, but don’t know the numbers at all.

*We* know the numbers and use them as reference (well, some of us do, some struggle with that and prefer the handles).

I would generalise that to:

-          The people who know the numbers are very invested (expert) in WCAG and would learn/-relearn a numbering scheme quickly.

-          The people who don’t know the numbers (the vast majority) don’t care and won’t notice.

I’m sure there will be a few people in the middle, but I think that is a tiny proportion.

It would be interesting to do a (non-working group) survey on that.



Tangent: In a typical audit we usually get 10-14 level-A issues, 4-7 AA issues, is that the same for others?

Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2017 09:04:07 UTC