Re: Numbering WCAG 2.1

Here's a an example of some of the confusion Alastair is concerned 

I took on writing the SC for 2.2.7 Interruptions (Minimum). Since the 
Understanding doc does not contain the SC wording, I brought up the 
complete 2.1 list to review it. I came across 2.2.4 Interruptions and 
started working.

I spent several hours editing the Understanding doc for 2.2.7 based on the 
SC wording for 2.2.4. Yeah, knuckleheaded I know, but the fact is this 
happened primarily because I just went through the list sequentially, came 
across the word "Interruptions" and stopped.

It's not tough to envision a situation where a similar experience will 
happen for others on this or other similarly worded SCs of different 
levels, which are now out of sequence. It's also not tough to imagine 
folks that are used to the fact 2.0 escalates from A to AA to AAA inside 
each section missing the new As and AAs that come after them -- or to be 
confused by the fact the number is non-sequential.

I can live with what's been proposed, but I do think it is going to cause 
more confusion than is anticipated by some.

Michael Gower
IBM Accessibility

1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034

From:   Alastair Campbell <>
To:     Andrew Kirkpatrick <>
Cc:     WCAG <>
Date:   2017-09-27 09:35 AM
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 group). 
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 <>
Date: Tuesday, 26 September 2017 at 22:48
To: WCAG <>
Subject: CFC: Numbering WCAG 2.1
Resent-From: WCAG <>
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 ( 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: 
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 17:25:12 UTC