Re: Numbering WCAG 2.1

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
>
>
>
>
>
>