- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Wed, 2 Aug 2017 13:35:19 -0400
- To: "Patrick H. Lauke" <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAdDpDb40uwDho7FFfJ_nrDHpzRkT9D-YFK1tUH-ZoZY4n7HtQ@mail.gmail.com>
I support numbers, unless there is a compelling reason not to on certain SCs, although right now I can't think of any good reasons off hand. Cheers, David MacDonald *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* Tel: 613.235.4902 LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> twitter.com/davidmacd GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> * Adapting the web to all users* * Including those with disabilities* If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 1:28 PM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk> wrote: > On 02/08/2017 13:41, David MacDonald wrote: > >> I support the use of numbered lists because it allows the bullets to be >> referenced to like this 3.3.4.2, or 3.3.4 #2 >> > > So...are you advocating changing all other non-numbered/bulleted lists to > numbered ones? Or just leaving the weird inconsistency as is? > > P > > Cheers, >> David MacDonald >> >> *Can**Adapt**Solutions Inc.* >> >> Tel: 613.235.4902 >> >> LinkedIn >> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> >> >> twitter.com/davidmacd <http://twitter.com/davidmacd> >> >> GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> >> >> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> >> >> / Adapting the web to *all* users/ >> >> / Including those with disabilities/ >> >> If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy < >> http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> >> >> On Wed, Aug 2, 2017 at 7:34 AM, Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk >> <mailto:redux@splintered.co.uk>> wrote: >> >> On 02/08/2017 10:15, Patrick H. Lauke wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> SCs with ordered/numbered lists: 1.4.8, 3.3.4, 3.3.6 >> >> I'd suggest changing the ordered lists to unordered would make >> most sense. And as I don't believe this change alters the >> meaning of the SCs' normative text, this is purely >> editorial/non-substantive. >> >> >> Addendum: I can see the potential argument that in the case of 1.4.8 >> numbered list was used to emphasise that all of those conditions >> need to be true. However, that's not the case for 3.3.4 and 3.3.6 >> (they're "at least one..." type lists there). >> >> And if 3.3.4 and 3.3.6 were changed to unordered lists (to match all >> other instances of "at least one..." type lists), then 1.4.8 would >> be the only numbered list, so I'd argue it should also be changed to >> unordered, perhaps strengthening the prose before the list instead >> to emphasise that ALL conditions must be met. >> >> >> P >> -- Patrick H. Lauke >> >> www.splintered.co.uk <http://www.splintered.co.uk> | >> https://github.com/patrickhlauke <https://github.com/patrickhlauke> >> http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ <http://flickr.com/photos/redux/> | >> http://redux.deviantart.com >> twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke >> >> >> > > -- > Patrick H. Lauke > > www.splintered.co.uk | https://github.com/patrickhlauke > http://flickr.com/photos/redux/ | http://redux.deviantart.com > twitter: @patrick_h_lauke | skype: patrick_h_lauke > >
Received on Wednesday, 2 August 2017 17:35:44 UTC