- From: Laura Carlson <laura.lee.carlson@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 12:02:40 -0500
- To: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
- Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
0 I won't object as Michael said that to de-emphasise the numbers would be technically complicated and more work. And I know we have a hard deadline to meet. However, I think Alastair's model [1] would be much more usable for people learning WCAG. Maybe we need to think about Priority of Constituencies. For instance the HTML5 Working Group addressed it for HTML5. [2] I agree with Alastair. We may need to revisit this in the future [3]. Kindest Regards, Laura [1] https://alastairc.ac/tests/wcag21-examples/wcag21-model7.html [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/html-design-principles/#priority-of-constituencies [3] https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-wai-gl/2017JulSep/1133.html On 9/26/17, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com> wrote: > 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. > > Thanks, > AWK > > Andrew Kirkpatrick > Group Product Manager, Accessibility > Adobe > > akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com> > http://twitter.com/awkawk > -- Laura L. Carlson
Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2017 17:03:04 UTC