Re: Numbering WCAG 2.1

Hello David,

I'd seen/hear about it before, and quite frankly, I'm not exactly a fan of the idea.
With all due respect, I personally strongly feel that this is not a responsible approach, given all the impacts it would have in our industry.


/Denis

--
Denis Boudreau,
Principal accessibility consultant & trainer
Deque Systems, Inc.
Cell: +1-514-730-9168
Email: denis.boudreau@deque.com [mailto:denis.boudreau@deque.com]

Keep in touch: @dboudreau [http://www.twitter.com/dboudreau]


On 2017-09-29 10:11:47 AM, David MacDonald <david100@sympatico.ca> wrote:
Hi Denis

What are your thought on deemphasis on SC numbers like this?
https://alastairc.ac/tests/wcag21-examples/wcag21-model7.html [https://alastairc.ac/tests/wcag21-examples/wcag21-model7.html]



Cheers,
David MacDonald
 
CanAdapt Solutions Inc.
Tel:  613.235.4902
LinkedIn 
[http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidmacdonald100]
twitter.com/davidmacd [http://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 [mailto: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 [tel:(514)%20730-9168]
Email: denis.boudreau@deque.com [mailto: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 [mailto: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 [mailto:acampbell@nomensa.com]]
Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 4:22 AM
To: kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com [mailto:kimberlee.dirks@thomsonreuters.com]
Cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org [mailto: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 [http://www.nomensa.com/] / @alastc