We have a class, wcag22, which (as I understand it’s behavior):
- Prepends “New in WCAG 2.2:” to
span elements in 2.2 Understanding docs.
- Removes the
span content from 2.1 Understanding docs.
It is quite important that we maintain only one set of Understanding documents. I submit that the first behavior should be improved.
- First, “new” is misleading as WCAG 2.2 is now 2½ years old. The guidance is no longer “new” in the conventional usage of the word.
- It is helpful to for Understanding content to have some way of noting SC which were added by 2.2. (This would also be helpful for any 2.0 Understanding which reference SC added by 2.1. Is there a
wcag21 class?)
I submit that the second behavior, removing content, is harmful (or at the very least, counter-productive). Users of 2.1 Understanding documents (deliberately, or by accident) are disadvantaged by not being alerted to the fact of the existence of newer material — regardless that 2.2 might not required (or even be consciously of interest to the reader).
- Maybe add ‡ to 2.2 SC references in Understanding docs for 2.0 and 2.1 era SC? There already is a
<a>_sc-short-name_</a> macro. That would be sure to catch almost use cases. (We might also add † to to 2.1 SC references in Understanding docs for 2.0 era SC.) We might also instead use ¹ and ² for such notation. And, of course, an explanation of the symbol would be needed on the pages that use it.
FWIW, #4843 prompted me to create this issues. Some research is needed to index all uses of the class, so as to inform what (if anything) should be done. Additional research is desirable to check that there are not more instances which would benefit from the class.
We have a class,
wcag22, which (as I understand it’s behavior):spanelements in 2.2 Understanding docs.spancontent from 2.1 Understanding docs.It is quite important that we maintain only one set of Understanding documents. I submit that the first behavior should be improved.
wcag21class?)I submit that the second behavior, removing content, is harmful (or at the very least, counter-productive). Users of 2.1 Understanding documents (deliberately, or by accident) are disadvantaged by not being alerted to the fact of the existence of newer material — regardless that 2.2 might not required (or even be consciously of interest to the reader).
<a>_sc-short-name_</a>macro. That would be sure to catch almost use cases. (We might also add † to to 2.1 SC references in Understanding docs for 2.0 era SC.) We might also instead use ¹ and ² for such notation. And, of course, an explanation of the symbol would be needed on the pages that use it.FWIW, #4843 prompted me to create this issues. Some research is needed to index all uses of the class, so as to inform what (if anything) should be done. Additional research is desirable to check that there are not more instances which would benefit from the class.