- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 08:37:52 -0500
- To: David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com>
- Cc: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, WCAG Editors <team-wcag-editors@w3.org>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi David and all, A big +1 from me. Let's deemphasize the numbers for 2.1. Putting IDs at the end of the SC text is what we discussed last December [1]. Last year's quick mock-up of that type of layout is still online [2]. The ID scheme (whatever is decided) would need to change of course. Thanks for all of your hard work on this David. Kindest Regards, Laura [1] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2016OctDec/0790.html [2] http://www.d.umn.edu/~lcarlson/wcagwg/numbering/model7.html On 9/20/17, David MacDonald <david@can-adapt.com> wrote: > 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2017 13:38:16 UTC