> On Oct 25, 2015, at 10:46 PM, lisa.seeman <lisa.seeman@zoho.com> wrote: > > Hi Gregg > > When I met with WCAG (I think it was at the last FTF) it was agreed that we could change these rules/restrictions in the extensions. If WCAG decide to go back on that then we should have that as a separate and serious discussion. (Personally I thought the decision was the right one.) Oh I agree. but you can’t use the old terminology (e.g. Success Criteria) if you want to use new rules. Or rather - you can’t redefine the meaning of those terms. You also won’t be able to use “conformance” if you don’t have testable criteria that a person can use to ‘conform’ (i.e. testable so they can know when they have conformed — and someone else can test and they will come up with the same conclusion) But as per the last email, I don’t think you need to use SC or conformance in this document. And I think you will create a much more useful one if you don’t. Get this document with all of its ideas, techniques and advice out for those who want to make things more cognitively accessible. THEN loop back and look to see what might be in the testable SC (not testable techniques - but SC) category. PS I predict (hope I am wrong but I predict) that you will find it very difficult and have many arguments even amongst the group as you try to find things that would qualify as SC. I personally think we need to make more ground on creating better AT that can use the “programmatically determined “provisions in the current WCAG to take content and re-present it in different formats for the wide range of people with cognitive, language, and learning disabilities. best Gregg
Received on Monday, 26 October 2015 04:02:14 UTC