Susan commented concerning my answer here:
This does not appear to address the question. It was flagged for deletion for that reason. I agree with the flag given that the only mention of the question at hand is to disregard it ("Regardless of the struggle to understand how the nakedness of the priests might have been exposed...")
If Susan and the person who flagged my answer for deletion had have read it free of bias against my EPV interlinear, then they would have noticed this in my answer:
Since there is no mention of steps in the construction of the Tabernacle, this cautionary instruction was likely due to the nature of the construction of the altar and the careless practices of the priests of other nations in their worship of gods of silver and gold (Exodus 20:23).
Surely it is worthy of note that the steps referred to in Exodus 20:26 had nothing to do with the construction of the Tabernacle or the altar, but that they were simply a matter of convenience for the priests. Also that the prohibition was possibly linked to Exodus 20:23 in regard to someone's (the LORD's, Moses') observation of the "careless practices" of the priests of other nations, i.e. that they had no concern about dignity in their service to their gods.
I also said this:
Given these dimensions, it would be tempting for the priests to want to elevate themselves with steps to reach all areas upon the altar without stretching. However, Exodus 20:26 forbids them to do so.
Did I really need to mention that in their stretching to reach objects upon the altar that their garments might be lifted, thus exposing their buttocks to whomever might be observing their activity. If someone thought that this needed to be explicitly mentioned, then surely that is what comments are for.
I am under no allusions that my question here will be met with any reasonableness. However, let it be known that I have no intention of not continuing to develop and use the EPV in my answers. So, downvote/delete to your hearts content.