W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > July to September 2017

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

From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2017 08:37:52 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOavpvckb4nc3jKyROCAVsesZ9RS70G_eg=2ZRoEthuOn1FY0w@mail.gmail.com>
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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:16 UTC