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

Re: CfC RE: Numbering WCAG 2.1

From: Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 21:59:28 +0000
To: "kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com" <kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com>, "acampbell@nomensa.com" <acampbell@nomensa.com>
CC: "w3c-wai-gl@w3.org" <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
Message-ID: <A0EAA32F-4C9D-4762-9AE1-C9C4CDA46DA0@adobe.com>
The proposals put forward by many were considered and discussed, and on the call on Tuesday we discussed this topic, and asked for objections from the people in attendance on the call (including you).

If you are objecting, please note that you are indicating that you cannot live with the decision. Is that accurate?


Andrew Kirkpatrick
Group Product Manager, Accessibility


From: "kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com<mailto:kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com>" <kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com<mailto:kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com>>
Date: Thursday, September 28, 2017 at 17:34
To: Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com<mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com>>, Andrew Kirkpatrick <akirkpat@adobe.com<mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com>>
Cc: WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org<mailto:w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>>
Subject: CfC RE: Numbering WCAG 2.1


I think we need to keep the numbers sequential, levels together, and honor (keep) the WCAG 2.0 numbers.

This is something we (in the world of attorneys, regulators, and legislators) do all the time in the regular business of keeping laws and regulations orderly and clear as they are amended, repealed, replaced, renumbered, etc.

I would like my objection noted, and share all the same concerns already well-articulated by Alastair below (and great mock-ups too), but if we otherwise have consensus, I’m also assuming this CfC would still move forward.



From: Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 11:34 AM
To: Andrew Kirkpatrick
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 <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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.w3.org%2FArchives%2FPublic%2Fw3c-wai-gl%2F2017JulSep%2F1097.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C4b84275abb6d4542c76008d506b8d0a4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636422313207921040&sdata=bRfZbMFNzZYgkDB1Pr2%2BGGaQlXGI2tX5I1Q%2Bezokqqg%3D&reserved=0>) 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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2F2017%2F09%2F26-ag-minutes.html%23item02&data=02%7C01%7C%7C4b84275abb6d4542c76008d506b8d0a4%7Cfa7b1b5a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636422313207921040&sdata=95euxCgokfDk0utVK0%2BWIhpohEFvGDUcXATzpDi8sjY%3D&reserved=0>

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 Thursday, 28 September 2017 21:59:55 UTC

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