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

Hi Detlev,

Agreed. As previously stated, the ID scheme (whatever is decided)
would need to change of course.

The point is the layout. The number would be at the end of the SC.

Kindest Regards,
Laura

On 9/20/17, Detlev Fischer <detlev.fischer@testkreis.de> wrote:
> +1 to Michael. I had a look at the mockup and I fear an  ID: 1.4(21)2 is not
> easy to understand let alone speak. How would you refer to that? "One point
> four open brackets twenty-one close bracket two"? That is an abomination.
> Then, the logic is also hard to grasp. First, there is 1.4.1(20) and then
> 1.4(21)2 ? That completely throws me. I'd rather have simple consecutive
> three digit numbering for the new SCs (till Silver).
>
> Detlev
> --
> Detlev Fischer
> testkreis c/o feld.wald.wiese
> Thedestr. 2, 22767 Hamburg
>
> Mobil +49 (0)157 57 57 57 45
> Fax +49 (0)40 439 10 68-5
>
> http://www.testkreis.de
> Beratung, Tests und Schulungen für barrierefreie Websites
>
> Michael Cooper schrieb am 20.09.2017 15:41:
>
> On 20/09/2017 9:10 AM, David MacDonald wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>> We should not refer to numbers as IDs. Numbers are a terribly brittle way
>> to ID something, and we have much better IDs already in the spec. In WCAG
>> 2.0 the ID for SC 1.1.1 is "text-equiv-all"; in WCAG 2.1 we base the ID on
>> the SC title so it's "non-text-content". In both cases there is a lot of
>> infrastructure built around those IDs, and no infrastructure built around
>> the numbers.
>>
>> I know I'm going to lose the debate on numbers, where my position is that
>> they are meaningless and we should number things as appropriate to *this*
>> spec, but we should not attempt to solve concerns with numbers by
>> declaring them as IDs when they are not and we already have better, more
>> stable IDs.
>>
>> Michael
>
>


-- 
Laura L. Carlson

Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2017 14:35:09 UTC