- From: David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca>
- Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 10:11:45 -0400
- To: "Denis Boudreau (Deque)" <denis.boudreau@deque.com>
- Cc: "Repsher, Stephen J" <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com>, Alastair Campbell <acampbell@nomensa.com>, Kim Dirks <kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com>, WCAG <w3c-wai-gl@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAAdDpDau7FXVkdusx0SK=QuV=sZXTeCp0b4WDp1jRAZFsC+hYA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi Denis What are your thought on deemphasis on SC numbers like this? https://alastairc.ac/tests/wcag21-examples/wcag21-model7.html Cheers, David MacDonald *Can**Adapt* *Solutions Inc.* Tel: 613.235.4902 LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100> twitter.com/davidmacd GitHub <https://github.com/DavidMacDonald> www.Can-Adapt.com <http://www.can-adapt.com/> * Adapting the web to all users* * Including those with disabilities* If you are not the intended recipient, please review our privacy policy <http://www.davidmacd.com/disclaimer.html> On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 9:28 AM, Denis Boudreau (Deque) < denis.boudreau@deque.com> wrote: > I'm sure others have mentioned it already, but the impact of changing the > numbering system would be huge for anyone building or maintaining an > accessibility tool out there. Whether it's an assessment tool for > accessibility, or any kind of homemade spreadsheet to keep up with a > testing methodology for that matter. Same holds true for any documentation > people may have built for themselves, that is structured according to SC > that have been around for almost 10 years (if we account for the fact that > these SC did not come out of thin air in December of 2008). > > Changing the number system is easy. Adapting to these changes around the > world is not. The impacts of changing this now, especially when we might > just be a few years away from a totally different set of guidelines > (Silver) seems like a terrible idea to me. > > > > /Denis > > -- > Denis Boudreau, > Principal accessibility consultant & trainer > Deque Systems, Inc. > Cell: +1-514-730-9168 <(514)%20730-9168> > Email: denis.boudreau@deque.com > > Keep in touch: @dboudreau <http://www.twitter.com/dboudreau> > > On 2017-09-29 9:22:15 AM, Repsher, Stephen J <stephen.j.repsher@boeing.com> > wrote: > > I don’t want to speak for Kim, but from what I understand of legal > numbering and what was discussed rather quickly on previous calls, > stressing the word “honor” helps the logic. For example, just adding a 0 > to all existing numbers allows 9 SC to be inserted between any 2, and would > have very minimal disruption: > > > > 1.3.10 Info and Relationships > > à 1.3.15 New 2.1 Criterion > > 1.3.20 Meaningful Sequence > > > > That’s just one technique of many. > > > > Steve > > > > *From:* Alastair Campbell [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com] > *Sent:* Friday, September 29, 2017 4:22 AM > *To:* kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com > *Cc:* w3c-wai-gl@w3.org > *Subject:* RE: Numbering WCAG 2.1 > > > > Hi Kim, > > > > I’m a bit confused, the logical result of: > > > keep the numbers sequential, > > > levels together, and > > > honor (keep) the WCAG 2.0 numbers. > > > > would be that we cannot add new SCs at A or AA, as either numbers would be > out of sequence, or the levels would be. > > > > Assuming we do add new SCs above AAA, we either have to re-order or > re-number in some way, am I missing something? > > > > My suggestion (for later) was that we de-emphasise the numbers and then > allow them to be out of order, so that the levels are kept together. > > > > Kind regards, > > > > -Alastair > > > > -- > > > > www.nomensa.com / @alastc > > > > > >
Received on Friday, 29 September 2017 14:12:12 UTC