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

Re: Numbering WCAG 2.1

From: john.foliot <john.foliot@deque.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:01:07 -0400
Message-ID: <59cbd956.7433c80a.77b60.23c8@mx.google.com>
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Hi Alastair, 
Funny enough, more often than not, the clients I work with aren't too concerned about the difference between A and AA, as, from a compliance perspective they have to do both. So while there is some curiosity about the difference between the two levels, when all is said and done, they just want to know what they need to conform to, with no distinction between the two. 
Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com> Date: 9/27/17  12:34 PM  (GMT-05:00) To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org> Subject: Re: Numbering WCAG 2.1 

I won’t object, but I think we may need to re-think this later.
Particularly where Michael said:
> “But in discussion, the importance of keeping conformance levels in a block seemed not to be too high.“
I have tried to make that point, I think that is important for understand-ability and we are currently prioritising expert & tool use over people who are not familiar with WCAG (which is the biggest
However, not many others are making that point so I won’t keep arguing about it.

I suspect we will get comments from the public about the ordering being confusing later in the process so the option I’d like to keep open is the de-emphasising the numbers, which would enable us
 to be more flexible about the order whilst keeping the proposed numbering.
I put together a small example of what that could look like here:

I can’t spend any longer on it so there’s just two SC in there, but the idea is the number is added to the right-hand links box, and removed from the start of the SC short-name. Everything else is
 the same, although the HTML structure would need a bit more finessing.
That would enable us to slot in new SC in the level-order without it looking too odd, so new level-A SC would go after the 2.0 level-A SC, and so on.

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>

Date: Tuesday, 26 September 2017 at 22:48

To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Subject: CFC: Numbering WCAG 2.1

Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>

Resent-Date: Tuesday, 26 September 2017 at 22:47


Call For Consensus — ends Thursday September 28th at 5:45pm Boston time.


The Working Group has discussed the issue of how or whether to renumber WCAG 2.1 SC over the past few weeks. On the call today the group discussed a proposal detailed by Michael Cooper (https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017JulSep/1097.html)
 and the group recognized that no solution was optimal, but that everyone could live with this solution and as a result agreed to this proposal.


Call minutes: https://www.w3.org/2017/09/26-ag-minutes.html#item02


If you have concerns about this proposed consensus position that have not been discussed already and feel that those concerns result in you “not being able to live with” this decision, please let the group know before the CfC deadline.





Andrew Kirkpatrick

Group Product Manager, Accessibility




Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2017 17:01:34 UTC

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