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

I've added the 4 tier
i.e., 1.3.1.00
idea to the spreadsheet, which was brought up on the call yesterday... In
running through it, it doesn't seem like a very elegant solution. Feel free
to look it over and comment... I don't think it works well.

So far the best idea seems to be deemphasizing the numbers by putting them
at the end of the SC text and use the Guideline numbers along with the
short handles for the default way to refer to SCs ...

If we do that I think should start referring to the numbers as ID#s. Its a
change in layout because WCAG 2 used the numbers as "Outline" mode to order
them. The new layout would be changing that "ID" mode as unique identifiers
but not the common way of referring to them by lay people. I'm OK with that
change but I think we should articulate it.

*http://tinyurl.com/ycb8zyef <http://tinyurl.com/ycb8zyef>*

Cheers,
David MacDonald



*Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.*
Mobile:  613.806.9005

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>

On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 8:38 AM, David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
wrote:

> >> The compromise I see is to reduce the visibility of the numbering. We
> still have them for experts, tools and laws, but perhaps make them small
> and put at the end of the SC title, perhaps in the little box with the
> understanding/meeting links? With that, we could then order them in a way
> that makes the most sense for 2.1, which is why I voted for keeping the
> level-order rather than numbering order.
>
> Given the lack of consensus on changing AAA numbers, I think this is my
> next favourite option. I've put up a mockup here.
> *http://tinyurl.com/ycb8zyef <http://tinyurl.com/ycb8zyef>*
>
>
>
> 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>
>
> On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:38 AM, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Sorry I couldn’t make the call yesterday (or tomorrow), my t’pence on the
>> issue from a decision making perspective:
>>
>>
>>
>> I think it would need to be either a complete overhaul of the numbering,
>> or leave the numbers as they are from 2.0. For a dot-release an overhaul is
>> too much.
>>
>>
>>
>> I do think we should be making a document that is ‘optimised’ for
>> newcomers rather than experts, it is simply a numbers thing, there will
>> always be more people coming to the document fresh than know it very well.
>> (I.e. making formatting decisions based on our usage is not valid.)
>>
>>
>>
>> The compromise I see is to reduce the visibility of the numbering. We
>> still have them for experts, tools and laws, but perhaps make them small
>> and put at the end of the SC title, perhaps in the little box with the
>> understanding/meeting links?
>>
>>
>>
>> With that, we could then order them in a way that makes the most sense
>> for 2.1, which is why I voted for keeping the level-order rather than
>> numbering order.
>>
>>
>>
>> > It also breaks the promise that was made that WCAG 2.0 criteria would
>> be unchanged in 2.1.
>>
>>
>>
>> I think the promise was that any conforming 2.1 site would also conform
>> to 2.0, that isn’t quite the same as not changing criteria.
>>
>>
>>
>> For example, we’ve had several comments saying that the current 1.4.4 is
>> defunct with the new zoom content + text adaptation critiria. Any site
>> passing those new SC in 2.1 would pass 1.4.4 in 2.0. Do we still need 1.4.4?
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>> -Alastair
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>