RE: Numbering WCAG 2.1

+0

I’m on the fence and don’t want to block forward progress by rejecting the call for consensus.

Brooks

From: Repsher, Stephen J [mailto:stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 8:33 AM
To: Michael Gower; Alastair Campbell
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick; WCAG
Subject: RE: Numbering WCAG 2.1

0
I share the views expressed by Alastair, Laura, Mike G., Jason, and others, and feel the group has really failed to compromise here despite numerous proposals.  I’m not objecting simply because it is clear important work will be blocked by continuing the debate.

Steve

From: Michael Gower [mailto:michael.gower@ca.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 1:25 PM
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
Cc: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>; WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: Re: Numbering WCAG 2.1

+0
Here's a an example of some of the confusion Alastair is concerned about...

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
Research

1803 Douglas Street, Victoria, BC  V8T 5C3
gowerm@ca.ibm.com<mailto:gowerm@ca.ibm.com>
voice: (250) 220-1146 * cel: (250) 661-0098 *  fax: (250) 220-8034



From:        Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>
To:        Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>
Cc:        WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Date:        2017-09-27 09:35 AM
Subject:        Re: Numbering WCAG 2.1
________________________________



+0

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:
https://alastairc.ac/tests/wcag21-examples/wcag21-model7.html<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__alastairc.ac_tests_wcag21-2Dexamples_wcag21-2Dmodel7.html&d=DwMGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc&m=Y2l4hxYmtNsVPHYE4pjLN0oZITO4la-23bx7aH6ptCw&s=hmF6w6wHTCQ9dtws0wjq71JNFymWiLF8a9TEN2QvJ5U&e=>

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.

Cheers,

-Alastair



From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>
Date: Tuesday, 26 September 2017 at 22:48
To: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: CFC: Numbering WCAG 2.1
Resent-From: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto: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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.w3.org_Archives_Public_w3c-2Dwai-2Dgl_2017JulSep_1097.html&d=DwMGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc&m=Y2l4hxYmtNsVPHYE4pjLN0oZITO4la-23bx7aH6ptCw&s=R0BqdklFYwmOydELZWiizWXRVHJxy1NJW3QhtOuYYZo&e=>) 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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.w3.org_2017_09_26-2Dag-2Dminutes.html-23item02&d=DwMGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc&m=Y2l4hxYmtNsVPHYE4pjLN0oZITO4la-23bx7aH6ptCw&s=vI3uA3s6xfJ6ZCZy0KBwOhh2mpYLI6gzjZbo8c9D1zQ&e=>

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<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__twitter.com_awkawk&d=DwMGaQ&c=jf_iaSHvJObTbx-siA1ZOg&r=_9rqR3xSCWQUlv9VpOcJwkP7H0XWQXmxeMmqQl6Fikc&m=Y2l4hxYmtNsVPHYE4pjLN0oZITO4la-23bx7aH6ptCw&s=jEn0ZaTgSHuvD1vUywwin-38-B1k4resoVxCUGWJvGM&e=>