Re: Editorial changes to SC

In general I think they look great and it helps a lot...

I would like to discuss with the group the option of making all bulleted
lists into orderded lists that are numbered... it would then be easier to
refer to individual bullets in reports of conformance.

For instance in User Interface components if referring to the part on
Inactive components an evaluator could list.

1.4.12 #2

Currently many SCs don't have bullets OR numbers which is a departure from

Even some of  the WCAG 2 SCs that have bullets in the original don't have
them in the last draft.
See the original 1.4.3

And I think the latest draft is confusing without these bullets because it
looks more like glossary terms than part of the SC text.

David MacDonald

*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*

Tel:  613.235.4902


GitHub <> <>

*  Adapting the web to all users*
*            Including those with disabilities*

If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy

On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Michael Cooper <> wrote:

> Following up on the QA checklist I sent around last week, I have done an
> editorial pass of the SC in WCAG 2.1. The changes I made are shown in:
> 7b28b37dab
> Please let me know if you disagree that any of these changes are
> editorial. Most are simple things like punctuation, but in a couple places
> I moved clauses around to improve coherence and readability.
> I added a couple things to the QA checklist as I went, and implemented
> those in these edits:
> QA_Checklist&diff=8139&oldid=8109
> The change that I think might give people the most pause is Content on
> Hover or Focus (
> or-focus), where I changed
> "When content becomes visible when triggered by a user interface component receiving
> keyboard focus or pointer hover, the following are true, except where the
> visual presentation of the content is controlled by the user agent and is
> not modified by the author:"
> to
> "When a user interface component which receives keyboard focus or pointer
> hover causes content to become visible, the following are true:"
> and moved the exception to after the bullet list. I made this change
> because I was finding the dependent clauses to be very hard to follow. I
> think I didn't change meaning, but want to point this out for extra review
> in case you disagree this change was editorial.
> I plan to make a pass through terms as well but didn't get to that today.
> Michael

Received on Friday, 8 September 2017 06:51:50 UTC