Re: Compromise on Numbering: Changing 11 AAA numbers solves the level problem

Hi David,

I appreciate the effort to come up with a middle ground solution in order
to keep numbering and levels ordered, but I think you're overlooking the
impact this will actually have.

The SC numbers are the primary way of identifying success criteria. If we
change numbers between 2.0 and 2.1, it will mean we'll now have identifiers
that mean one thing in the context of 2.0, and another in 2.1. So now if I
want to know for sure what SC you are talking about, I also need to know
the WCAG version. What for 2.0 was a reliable identifier now no longer is.

This means that every piece of software that uses WCAG SC numbers as
identifiers will NOT be able to support WCAG 2.1 without changes. All of
them will have to switch over to using both WCAG version and SC numbers as
identifiers. I don't know how many accessibility tools do this today, but I
expect it will be most. Ours certainly do. Changing such a fundamental
thing as what is used as an identifier isn't a small change either, no
matter how you built your software.

The argument of "its just AAA, people don't use it much" doesn't hold
either. AAA criteria are used selectively by most accessibility testers,
and so most software/databases has at least a few of them.

Essentially, this proposal would make adopting WCAG 2.1 more costly than it
needs to be. It also breaks the promise that was made that WCAG 2.0
criteria would be unchanged in 2.1.

So I'm sorry David, but I don't even a compromise limited to AAA would
prevent problems. SC identifiers are unique or they aren't. "only the AAA
ones" is just as problematic as changing every one of them, at least as far
as software is concerned. Even WCAG requires for identifiers to be unique
(SC 4.1.1), that's probably a good hint that this isn't a good idea.

Wilco

P.s. Stop distracting me from my vacation ;)

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 10:57 PM, David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
wrote:

> The current problem is that new Level SCs come in after AAA in
> thenstandard unless we jugle the order or deemphise number, neither of
> which is ideal.
>
> Here's a proposal that might work as a compromise.
>
> Level AAA SCs are less entrenched in the WCAG culture. What if we agree
> that those numbers can change.
>
> - Change 11 Level AAA SC numbers
> - Insert the new SCs in their proper place
> - move accidental activation to Pointer Guideling as per Steve's
> suggestion Issue #376
> - Make new Speech guideline 2.7
>
> This would allow the numbers to make sense with the levels also in order,
> so no Level A or AA would follow AAA, and would keep ALL Level A and AA SC
> numbers in tact.
>
> Cheers,
> David MacDonald
>
>
>
> *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
> Mobile:  613.806.9005 <(613)%20806-9005>
>
> 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>
>



-- 
*Wilco Fiers*
Senior Accessibility Engineer - Co-facilitator WCAG-ACT - Chair Auto-WCAG