- From: Glenda Sims <glenda.sims@deque.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 13:27:26 -0500
- To: Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org>
- Cc: AG WG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAH2ngEQwW1FbOYKHF0cnLiAJEy-eWb6jyag3jP5GQvhtfkyL9Q@mail.gmail.com>
+1 glenda sims | team a11y lead | deque.com | 512.963.3773 *web for everyone. web on everything.* - w3 goals [image: IAAP International Association of Accessibility Professionals: Certified Professional in Accessibility Core Competencies (CPACC)] <http://www.accessibilityassociation.org/certification> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:39 AM, Michael Cooper <cooper@w3.org> wrote: > There's been a lot of discussion about how we should number WCAG 2.1 SC, > whether we should renumber WCAG 2.0 SC, and whether and how SC numbers > serve as IDs. There have been a lot of suggestions but I think most of the > proposed solutions introduce their own problems. In addition to maintaining > backwards compatibility with WCAG 2.0, we also need to consider forwards > compatibility with a potential WCAG 2.2 as well as minimize the set of > different approaches that could confuse people more than they help. > > Accordingly, I suggest we adopt a "simplest" approach to resolving the > debate so we can unblock our work on SC harmonization: > > - We've heard loud and clear that people don't want WCAG 2.0 SC > renumbered, so we should stick to that. > - Attempts to come up with different numbering schemes for 2.1 SC will > just be more confusing, so we should number them using the same pattern > that was used for 2.0. > - The main reason we needed to contemplate renumbering was to sort SC > within a given guideline together by conformance level, meaning some 2.1 SC > would get inserted between 2.0 SC. But in discussion, the importance of > keeping conformance levels in a block seemed not to be too high. Therefore > we should just leave 2.1 SC tacked on to the end of the guideline with > numbering as they naturally land, as we've already done. If we do a 2.2 and > add more SC, we'd just continue that. > - The How to Meet / Quick Reference document should provide sorting > features that allow SC of a given conformance level to be grouped together, > causing numbers to be discontiguous if people choose that sort. But the > static spec itself should not have discontiguous SC numbers, so SC will > appear in number order, not always in conformance level order. > - Implementers that want to use SC numbers as IDs in their own > implementations can do so, and won't have existing WCAG 2.0 implementation > disrupted. However, we should provide better documentation of the IDs that > already exist, which are generated from the title of each SC and are shown > in the "permalinks" at the end of the line by each SC. Beyond this support > we provide for referencing, we should not be in the business of defining > internals of implementations. > - People can refer to SCs colloquially either by number or by the SC > title, which is already brief yet descriptive. With those two reference > forms available, we should not introduce any further ones, which would have > diminishing returns. > > Essentially this all boils down to, let's not make any changes from how > the draft is currently structured to accommodate numbering and IDs. With > this stabilized, we can now look at other issues on the SC without worrying > about the impact on numbering. > > Michael >
Received on Wednesday, 27 September 2017 18:27:50 UTC