Re: OFF TOPIC - Re: [w3c/wcag21] Graphics contrast (#500)

Hi John,

Michael’s comment got a bit garbled by github’s editor, I updated that in the pull request [1] and re-copied it in below.

The particular understanding doc was graphics contrast [2], which is particularly long and replete with examples to convey the meaning of the SC text. (And recently updated if anyone would like to have a look!) Given that many of the SCs are more complex than those in 2.0 (otherwise they would have been included in 2.0), I guess this will happen for more SC.

Due to the volume it makes sense to have sub-headings in the Intent, which then makes the Benefits a bit lost.

I also found it difficult to write the benefits without re-stating the start of the intent. I had several comments that the start needed to be improved by saying why you want to do this, which is the benefits!

If we make a change, I’d suggest either starting the intent with benefits, or dropping it and making sure we include the benefits at the top of the intent.





From: John Foliot

FWIW, I agree with Micheal that promoting Benefits to sibling of Intent has a positive benefit, and I'd support that idea going forward.

Could we strike up a straw poll around this, to take an internal temperature of the WG? Chairs?


On Oct 11, 2017 10:15 AM, "michael-n-cooper" <<>> wrote:

@michael-n-cooper commented on this pull request.

Reviewing structurally only: my major comment is that where new headings beyond the template are introduced, the heading and content related to that heading should be enclosed in a <section>element. This would be used for script processing such as generating TOC, or style, referencing, etc.

Having a bunch of new <h3> in the Intent section causes the Benefits section to get lost in the shuffle. However, I've been wondering if we should promote Benefits to be a sibling of Intent rather than a child of it (in spite of the structure that was used for WCAG 2.0 Understanding), so this may trigger the answer into a "yes, that matters" state.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<>, or mute the thread<>.

Received on Friday, 13 October 2017 09:19:39 UTC